20-05-2008 EN Debates of the 1

TUESDAY, 20 MAY 2008

IN THE CHAIR: MR MAURO Vice-President

1. Opening of the sitting

(The sitting was opened at 9 a.m.)

2. Documents received: see Minutes

3. Action taken on Parliament’s resolutions: see Minutes

4. Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (announcement of motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes

5. Employment Policy Guidelines for Member States (debate)

President. − The next item is the report (A6-0172/2008) by Mrs Van Lancker, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (COM(2007)0803 PART V – C6-0031/2008 – 2007/0300(CNS)).

Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. − (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission’s December 2007 Strategic Report has sent a very positive message, which received the support of the at its spring meeting in March 2008. The results of the , in its 2005 renewed form, are already visible now at the end of the first three-year cycle. Economic growth and employment growth are impressive. Many indicators point to the fact that the structural reforms have started to produce results. Although all the Member States have been implementing reforms since 2005, some are doing better than others. A degree of fatigue in this area has become noticeable during the last year. However, Europe must not stop or slow down the pace. On the contrary, it is necessary to continue with reform implementation, preferably with even more gusto. This is the idea behind the Commission’s proposal on maintaining the key Integrated Guidelines – including the key employment guidelines – in their existing form until 2010. The Commission strongly believes that these key guidelines provide a proper framework for the present-day tasks of the European labour market, and that they serve their purpose. The European Council endorsed this at its spring meeting by opting for a general approach based on stability. Member States must be given the opportunity to finish the reforms they have begun, and they should also be given a timeframe within which the results of the reforms should show. The Commission also found that it was necessary to propose changes, with emphasis on certain important tasks that would be tackled in the near fu climate change, energy, social dimension and flexicurity. The Commission also expressed its wish to put more stress on the need for greater inclusion and more stringent implementation. As a result, the agreed goals and reference levels were included in the wording of the key guidelines.

Anne Van Lancker, rapporteur. − (NL) Please allow me first and foremost to thank the Members with whom I have been able to collaborate on this report for their excellent cooperation. It is my belief that a few too many amendments have been made to details in the report, but nevertheless, Commissioner, the message must be clear: this European Parliament will not accept ‘business as usual’ on the European Employment Strategy. It is true that a great deal of work has yet to be done in the Member States in order to apply the guidelines in practice, but it is also true that the guidelines must be adapted in order to remedy a number of material shortcomings. I should like to mention three essentials. First of all, the Employment Strategy must be given a much stronger social dimension. There are still too many groups in society that do not share in the benefits of growth and jobs. Disabled people, migrants and semi- and unskilled workers are still all too often left to their fate, whilst we need everyone in society and everyone in the labour market. For that reason, the 2 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

Employment Strategy must also promote active social integration in order to combat poverty and social exclusion by offering a decent income and quality services together with an active policy of job-search assistance and training. Secondly: the quality of the work. Clearly, more jobs have been created, but for that reason they have not always been better jobs. Too many people remain tied against their will to precarious contracts, temporary jobs, involuntary part-time work or jobs that often guarantee them only an insufficient income. For that reason, the emphasis must be laid more upon the quality of jobs, on opportunities to progress into permanent jobs with a reliable income. The training efforts must be drastically increased and, above all, all workers, regardless of employment status, must be granted social rights. Flexibility is not the only thing required in the labour market; the workers also need more security. Thirdly: the gender perspective. Women have made a huge advance in the labour market, yet they are still far from achieving equal opportunities. The wage gap is still unacceptably wide. Women do not have the same access to training, nor the same opportunities to establish a business. Those who want to return to work after a career break find it increasingly difficult. Overcoming difficulties in order to reconcile a career and family life too often remains problem for women only, and they also often feel the consequences on their income during their retirement. It is for this reason that the Employment Strategy must devote particular attention to the gender perspective, in order to eliminate all inequalities between men and women. Finally, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the commitment of the Member States and the to solid social legislation will make or break the Employment Strategy as a method. I hope, therefore, that all the Member States of the European Union will transpose and apply the European legislation consistently, and I also hope, Commissioner, that the Commission will soon – within a few months, maybe even within a few weeks – present us with an ambitious social agenda. I hope that both the June meeting of the Council and the Commissioner and Commission will listen to our message. Incidentally, it is regrettable, Mr President, that not a single representative of the Council Presidency is here, because this message is in fact primarily targeted at the June Council meeting, which must take definitive decisions on the Employment Strategy. I hope that someone will manage to convey Parliament’s message to them by then.

Elisabeth Morin, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, first I would like to express my thanks to the rapporteur, Anne Van Lancker, and to the members of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats for the high standard of consultation we engaged in together to come up with this text, which sums up our shared convictions and the way we would like to see the Employment Guidelines change. Growth in jobs in Europe, in accordance with the Lisbon strategy, should from now on be pursued taking account of three major recent or current changes. These are the globalisation of the economy, which forces Europe to be incisive from an economic point of view and from the point of view of developing employment; flexicurity, which is absolutely necessary for the development of our companies and therefore of employment; and, of course the construction of a social Europe. To achieve this, we introduced three particular highlights into this update of the Employment Guidelines. On the one hand, there is the very necessary fight to stop people leaving education systems without any qualifications. Leaving education without qualifications means not being equipped for integration into a job and therefore not having the resources for social integration. That is our first duty and we really need to work hard at it. The second point we need to be very concerned about is maintaining and developing lifelong learning, which is the only way of guaranteeing ongoing employability and mobility of employees. The third point concerns validation of acquired experience, which really enables employees to progress their careers, and also enables companies to adapt effectively to new requirements.

We reached agreement on all these points, and I therefore thank the members of the PPE-DE Group for their support in today’s vote.

Jan Andersson, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (SV) Mr President, when Anne Van Lancker began working on the European Parliament’s response, she planned to concentrate on a few important points, since we knew that both the Commission and the Council would propose that the guidelines should not be amended at all. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 3

Our tactic was to concentrate on a small number of points in the hope that they might listen to at least some of what we had to say. It was not to be. Although the basic approach is the same, we now have masses of amendments instead of just a few. I think that it would have been better to concentrate on what Mrs Van Lancker said – that we clearly integrate the social dimension, a policy for all those who are outside the labour market and have no share in prosperity. Despite a favourable employment trend, we note that a great many of the new jobs are insecure and do not provide a living. The employment offers no security. And the discussion we have had on flexicurity should be reflected more clearly in the guidelines since it has been debated for several years. The same applies to the equality issues. The fact that the Council is not here, I think regrettably, is because the Council will not listen to anything Parliament has to say. They will do exactly as they have previously decided. I think that we in the European Parliament must give serious consideration in the next three-year review to changing our tactic and the way we work so that Parliament has a real influence on how the guidelines are to look in the future.

Ona Juknevičienė, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (LT) Congratulations to the rapporteur, Mrs Van Lancker, on preparing this significant report. I would also like to thank the rapporteur for her helpful cooperation and understanding in the acceptance of amendments. I consider this document to have the right balance and I hope it will find the support of the majority in tomorrow’s vote. I wish to draw your attention to the fact that the Commission Communication to the Council contains an extremely welcome proposal that would encourage the development of the market and increase employment.

This is the freedom of knowledge, which would be added to the four fundamental freedoms – the free movement of goods, services, persons and capital. This fifth freedom should help speed up the EU’s transition to a modern, creative knowledge economy. It would in turn strengthen the knowledge triangle of scientific research, education and innovation within the EU. The initiative proposed by the Commission is no doubt a very good one. However, no one would argue against the importance of the original four freedoms in increasing employment. Nevertheless, it happens that some Member States fail to adhere to EU policy and even breach the legal norms. In pursuing protective policy, they prevent the free movement of capital and persons and jeopardise the development not only of their own countries, but of the EU as a whole. In my view, the free movement of services will not guarantee the freedom of development of small and medium-sized enterprises. Let us not forget Winston Churchill’s observation that if you destroy a free market, you create a black market. The Commission and the Member States should realise that we can achieve much more together than by going our separate ways.

Elisabeth Schroedter, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we in the group of the Greens/ European Free Alliance warmly welcome Mrs Van Lancker’s report because it would be fatal if the Council were to announce full-bodied reforms in employment policy guidelines for 2008 and then say: actually, we don't want a reform! Commissioner, you are absolutely right when you say that reform fatigue seems to have occurred at the Commission and also particularly in the Council. The Van Lancker report, however, clearly sets the right priorities. I should particularly like to emphasise the setting of new priorities in social integration. It is vital that the message goes out from here that we cannot forget the people outside and that they are important to us. Secondly, we Greens have made a considerable contribution to ensuring that this Parliament report has a substantial gender mainstreaming dimension - consistently - and that family policy is not completely sold out as gender mainstreaming policy. Gender mainstreaming is broader and concerns women – not men and women, as is the case in family policy. We Greens, however, will continue to take a discerning look at the flexicurity sector until social protection is guaranteed. I should once again like to point out that we need reform and not stalemate.

Ewa Tomaszewska, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, the common employment policy for Member States is undergoing a test. It is increasingly throwing up employment growth programmes for 4 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

various age groups, taking account of their specific needs and potential and the threat of problems with finding work. Under the Lisbon Strategy, these programmes above all envisage investment in people and in their education, and better chances in the job market. A rise in employment by 3.6 million people in 2007 and an anticipated rise in employment by 4.5 million in 2008-2009 is the perceptible result of this policy. This means that promoting an approach to work that matches the human life cycle, concern for young people not completing their education and for adapting work conditions to family needs, and especially to parental duties, eliminating discrimination in the workplace, particularly in the scope of access to training and other forms of skill refinement, and gradually restricting occupational activity among older people should in future constitute the basis for action in this sphere.

Jiří Maštálka, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, I too join the ranks of those who wish to thank the rapporteur for her work, for the report that stresses the importance of one of the pillars of the European Community, namely the European social model. I welcome the fact that the report accentuates issues such as enhancing social integration, combating poverty and emphasising social inclusion in employment policies. The rapporteur also rightly accentuates the need to promote gender equality at work. These positive aspects notwithstanding, the way our political group sees it, the draft resolution puts more emphasis on the principle of flexibility than on true provision of good job opportunities and the right to quality work. I sympathise with the rapporteur. It is difficult to find a compromise solution between these two options. I regret that the committee adopted only one of the many motions tabled by our political group, and under these circumstances I have to say that in spite of all the compromise solutions that were adopted we will not be able to support the final report. In spite of that, I must say that I was honoured to work with the rapporteur. The future, the outcome of the flexibility concept, the new social experience and the citizens of the European Union will all decide, in the end, which of us is closer to the truth in searching for, and implementing, the social Europe project.

Kathy Sinnott, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, the conclusion of this strategic report on the Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs is that the Lisbon Strategy is working. However, the rapporteur draws attention to the fact that the Strategy for Jobs is not delivering for all citizens. Six million young people in the EU leave school early and 16% of the total EU population are poor or at risk of poverty. This is a key challenge but, unfortunately, in the list of people that are at risk we have again lost the opportunity to include carers. Carers are the largest workforce in Europe. They are not people out of work but people working harder than many people who are in the labour force. When I brought up the issue of carers in committee, I was told that carers – people caring for our older people, people with disabilities and children – are people on career breaks. To call caring a ‘career break’ is to show ignorance of what carers do and the value of what they do. Please, Commissioner, bring carers into focus and support them. Carers are the key to how we manage our ageing European population in terms of meeting the needs of our older citizens and stabilising our birth rates. So make carers a priority. Hopefully in this Parliament we will also specifically look at the issue of carers.

Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, while we are pleased about the 6.5 million new jobs that have been created in the last two years, we should not remain silent about the fact that 4 out of 10 employees have in the meantime been living in precarious employment relationships. In many countries temporary employment agencies are rising in rank to become the largest employers. Increasing globalisation and the relocation of production to countries with lower wages brings massive job losses. Temporary jobs can only partly compensate for this. Meanwhile, 78 million Europeans have to live on the poverty line with temporary work, 1- jobs and mini-jobs. You cannot, however, feed a family on a McJob. Even the erstwhile employment guarantor, a good education, is rarely any help nowadays. Gross wages have fallen by almost 5% within three years in , for instance, whereas the cost of living has risen massively since the introduction of the euro. While we can be pleased about a net increase in employment figures in the light of these facts, it is in my view a mockery for every individual among the millions of unemployed and anyone who, despite doing honest work, has to live in poverty.

Thomas Mann (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, because of globalisation our living and working conditions are changing so rapidly that many citizens are losing track of things. They feel swamped and insecure. The 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 5

guidelines of the Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs need to be clearly visible to them: competitive jobs, equal opportunities and social cohesion. The flexicurity concept is still not sufficiently understood. Not only do employees have to become more flexible in their own interests in order to improve their employability, but enterprises also have to become more flexible by developing new marketing strategies and innovative products and capturing market niches, among other things. At the same time, employees need efficient social security systems to ensure that they are integrated rather than excluded. Their work should be rewarded appropriately according to the sector and by agreements between the social partners, not by government intervention. The aim of European employment policy is both to provide more people with jobs and to create higher quality jobs. At the same time there has to be investment in education and training in order to ensure that the concept of lifelong learning is genuinely sustained and includes underperformers. It must be made clear that both the ESF as well as the European Regional Development Fund and the new Globalisation adjustment Fund must directly benefit those threatened or affected by unemployment. They should be better prepared for change and be able to enter new spheres of work. We shall also be measured by whether we have managed to keep older employees in work processes for longer, instead of shunting them into early retirement. They are highly motivated, able to work under pressure and have know-how aplenty. Best practices should demonstrate how young and old cooperate through teamwork and how both sides benefit. The guidelines for employment policy in this very good report will be accepted above all if the principle is consistently maintained. Mrs Van Lancker is right: the Member States have to prove that they are taking part in this, and then confidence in our social market model will increase.

Rovana Plumb (PSE). – (RO) I would like to congratulate my colleague, Mrs. Van Lancker, for her work and emphasize the importance of this report. Special attention should be given to the fact that, at present, 78 million citizens of the European Union are poor or exposed to the risk of poverty, and 6 million young people leave school. We, as European socialists, want to provide equal chances to all citizens for a decent living, for strengthening social cohesion. The implementation of these guidelines will contribute to the increase in the number of safer and better paid jobs, to guaranteeing adequate social protection by access to quality social services, promoting active social integration for all the European Union citizens for the purpose of fighting poverty and social exclusion. In this context, I would like to emphasize the care we should provide to the disabled and elderly people for access to the labour market, as well as for eliminating all discrimination between women and men in relation to pay. I believe this report is an important instrument for achieving the new Lisbon Strategy objectives and will contribute to strengthening the social dimension of the Lisbon Treaty also ratified by . I will support and vote on this report.

Siiri Oviir (ALDE). – (ET) Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, the guidelines for economic growth and employment for the next three years will be debated at the Spring European Summit. The Lisbon Agenda has started to bear fruit. This is a good thing, although we have probably focused too little on social inclusion in its activity. The Lisbon Agenda has indeed created new jobs, although not always the best kind. It is not enough to set courageous targets – education is needed, as is tailoring of school systems and increases in their capabilities, making them respond to the needs of the knowledge-based economy and society. It is very important to promote a family-friendly approach to work. The Lisbon Agenda requires a strengthening of social measures. Attention should not be placed just on flexibility of labour relations, but on protected flexibility. Only a balance between flexibility and protection can improve employment and social protection. We must work to ensure that positive developments in economic, employment and social policy complement each other. Allow me also to congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent work.

Gabriele Zimmer (GUE/NGL). – (DE) Mr President, the Commission refers to the fact that as a result of employment policies agreed with the Member States in the last two years, 6.5 million jobs have been created. This sounds good, particularly for those who want to adapt the European Union increasingly to global competition, but it is not as good for those who have taken these jobs but for the most part can barely make a living from them. The report on poverty published in Germany yesterday has also clearly shown that more and more employees need benefits on top of their earned income in order not to slide into poverty and that the disparity between 6 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

those on high incomes and those who draw as good as no income is becoming ever larger. It is therefore urgently necessary for the European Union’s employment strategy to become much more strongly and practically involved in combating social exclusion and poverty, creating good jobs, increasing income and providing social protection for the employed. This practical involvement, however, is not consciously forthcoming, for whatever reasons. The European Union should ultimately be focusing its attention on the concept of good jobs, an idea that the EU’s Employment Ministers were propagating even a year ago in order to move a step further forward here. The flexicurity concept is not sufficient in this context.

Derek Roland Clark (IND/DEM). – Mr President, if the Lisbon Strategy is beginning to work, why has part-time work risen from 16.2% to 18.1% over the last few years? Why has the share of people with involuntary fixed-term contracts and no long-term security reached over 6.5%? The rapporteur admits that EU unemployment reached 8.9% in 2005. It is due to fall to 7.1% this year, but will it? In the UK, unemployment is only about 5.8%. Combating unemployment does not need a policy. It needs a shot in the arm. Talking of which, was the hypodermic system invented by a commission or a parliament or a committee? No, it was not. Someone had a bright idea, and good ideas always spread. For good ideas, read best practice, and best practices are for sharing. Look at the UK’s superior employment figures noted just now. They are better because our best practices include maintaining our opt-outs from the useless Working Time Directive and not taking the euro but continuing to trade worldwide outside the EU more than any other Member State. There is my shot in the arm. Will you take it?

Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to begin my speech with an observation that I take pleasure and satisfaction in relating. The renewed Lisbon Strategy is beginning to show results, and what is particularly pleasing is that in the European Union there is a steady increase in the number of people who are in work. At this point, however, I must take issue to a certain extent with the opinion of the rapporteur, Mrs Van Lancker, that the quality of the newly created jobs might arouse disquiet. Of course, we should do all we can to ensure that the jobs on offer in the European Union are of the highest quality, but I feel that any work is better than unemployment, which is degrading and sustains a feeling that one has no personal worth. This is particularly the case with young people, among whom the level of unemployment continues to be high, as a result of which their future should become a priority task in the next few years. One effective instrument for increasing the availability of jobs, which is particularly important for young Europeans, is the concept of combining flexibility and security in the job market, referred to as ‘flexicurity’. There is no single universal model of flexicurity and so this concept should be put into effect taking account of the specific circumstances and traditions that prevail in the different Member States. This is in fact the direction proposed in the amendments put forward by my political group. There are, however, two elements in this concept that are as good as universal, and at the same time, as I see it, crucial. The first of these is investment in education, and especially in a high level of continuing education, which enables employees to adjust their skills to rapidly changing economic and job market trends. Secondly, we have a bolder use of ‘non-standard’ forms of employment, which particularly enable young people preparing to launch themselves into their working lives both to obtain practical skills and to cover the costs of their vocational education.

Richard Falbr (PSE). – (CS) First of all, I would like to express my admiration for Mrs Anne Van Lancker, who did not collapse under the weight of amendments and did not allow her report to be watered down. I would probably be even more critical because I am of the opinion that the renewed Lisbon Strategy contributes very little. The unemployment rate is not falling significantly; the jobs created are not high-quality jobs; we tolerate people in the EU Member States suffering from in-work poverty. All this means that something is clearly not right here. Not even the Green Paper gives answers to the questions we are asked by workers and trade unions. All we have to do, though, is to look up the relevant International Labour Organisation Conventions. We should remember that, with few exceptions, almost all the Member States have ratified the most important of them. The unease with which European trade unions have received the latest judgments of the European Court of Justice in the Viking – Laval – Rüffert cases is understandable. My advice is to offer fewer pages and more respect for what has been achieved in the past decades, especially in the developed countries of the European Union. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 7

Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM). – (SV) Mr President, this report is imbued with the spirit of the values which should govern a free labour market. But there is one big drawback: it is wrong to draw up such rules at EU level. It will then become part of the EU’s common regulatory system, the – it will be enshrined in Holy Writ. The possibility of future reforms will disappear throughout Europe. If, in the 1970s, Germany and had forced through a common employment policy for the Community, based on the political concepts which prevailed at the time, Europe’s economy would now be in decline. The current buzzword, flexicurity, recurs constantly in the report. That is because no common employment policy was formulated, which in turn is why was able to develop something which now looks very promising. The report would benefit by being reduced to a single sentence: ‘The European Parliament recommends that the Member States take a look at the Danish flexicurity model in order to see whether they have something to learn from it.’ Period.

José Albino Silva Peneda (PPE-DE). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the figures on employment trends are in fact very positive and we would have to go back to the 1980s to find similar values. Nevertheless, we need to be aware that not all European regions have shown equally encouraging results; the news on the quality of employment is not the best either. I am aware that, when talking about social policy there is always the tendency to set priorities, and this is no easy task – the temptation is to regard everything as a priority. Experience shows, though, that when everything is a priority the result is that nothing is a priority.

I should therefore like to encourage all of us to try to ensure that we are able to include the defining of roles, responsibilities and clear and quantifiable objectives in these social issues, specifically in terms of employment policy. As a contribution, I would say that for me there is one very clear priority bound up with putting a halt to early school leaving, which nowadays affects 15% of young people between the ages of 18 and 24. That is, more than 6 million young people. The early school leaving scenario is particularly serious in view of the expected demographic evolution in Europe, which by 2030 will have 18 million fewer children and young people and 52% more people aged over 65. I find it unacceptable that this precious, shrinking population of young people, upon which social security systems depend, should not be well educated and prepared, to the highest level, to deal successfully with the new labour market challenges. We all know that the least educated are the most vulnerable to unemployment and social exclusion within the information society and obviously run the risk of finding themselves socially excluded. Like our rapporteur, Mrs Van Lancker, whom I congratulate, I firmly believe that the social dimension of the Lisbon Strategy must be strengthened particularly through a greater emphasis on the issue of inclusion.

Juan Andrés Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the main virtues of the work that has been done are the basic consensus on the diagnosis of the situation and the treatments that need to be applied at national level in order to achieve the employment objectives of the Lisbon Strategy. The Union needs to be extremely strong economically in order to make political progress without renouncing the social model that is in its genes. The best social policy is to allow people to integrate and make progress through employment. These eight guidelines give us the roadmap for the reforms that need to be tackled by 2010, and are more than sufficient for launching national reform programmes. However, there are some very decisive elements on which we need to work in a particular way.

The first is achieving a level of mobility that opens up employment opportunities, essentially for young people. In order to do this, it is absolutely vital that we guarantee an effective system of equivalence of qualifications, not only in terms of degrees and diplomas, but in terms of training for employees throughout their working lives. 8 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

The second is modernising the employment rules in order to move towards gradual and flexible retirement. This would avoid the decline in employment income and future situations of poverty. The third is to improve the linguistic competence of the population in general, because globalisation has its rules, ladies and gentlemen. Whoever adapts, wins. The rest lose. If we want greater productivity, quality jobs and greater skills, we need to continue to drive forward the reforms mentioned in the Lisbon Strategy. It is true that there have been achievements, but if the outstanding reforms are neglected, everything will collapse. That is why the implementation through dialogue of initiatives such as ‘flexicurity’ is essential.

Iles Braghetto (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Lisbon Strategy has achieved the objective of increasing employment in Europe, but not everyone has benefited: the path for young people, women and marginal social groups remains difficult. The quality of employment has not improved either: the number of fixed-term contracts has increased and greater flexibility has not been matched by job security. This is why the social dimension of the Lisbon Strategy must be strengthened, supporting lifelong learning and skills recognition. Welfare systems that provide income support and facilitate mobility within the job market must be defined, with the proper shock absorbers, and the work/life balance goals must be achieved.

The draft resolution is a step in this direction, which is why we are supporting it.

Tadeusz Zwiefka (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, I agree with the statement that the revived Lisbon Strategy has brought a greater number of jobs, but not necessarily better-quality jobs. The need to combat poverty and social exclusion should always be taken into account in any EU strategy. I do not, however, share the view that adopting common social standards at EU level will be a panacea for our problems. Employment and social policy falls within the scope of Member States’ rights, and all actions by the EU in this sphere must be compliant with the principle of subsidiarity. Establishing and introducing strategies based on specific models such as flexicurity will differ at national level. I would like to emphasise the danger that accompanies a one-dimensional approach on this matter, while at the same time favouring the creation of a platform at EU level for the purpose of exchanging information and best practice. It is my view that no specific employment policy strategy will bring complete success without the total levelling of all existing barriers to the free flow of labour as a sure means of stimulating economic growth and promoting employment.

Renate Weber (ALDE). – (RO) I congratulate Anne Van Lancker for the report. Personally, I am worried about the quality of jobs. We have 78 million people at the limit of the poverty threshold also because Member States have inequalities in relation to the pay for employees. I know what discrimination problems many Romanians working legally in other European Union Member States are dealing with and that they are forced to accept work below their qualification and lower salaries than their colleagues, citizens of the given countries. Unfortunately, at the European Union level, we have no mechanism for assessing the quality of jobs and we need one. I strongly believe that the principle of the correct pay is an incentive for the supply of quality services and I am completely against the existent tendencies to underpay the employees and the free movement of labour should not be restricted in any way in the European Union.

Miloslav Ransdorf (GUE/NGL). – (CS) In reality, there are only two ways to solve the unemployment issue: one is for the people to go where the work is, and the other is for the work to go where the people are. I think that the latter option is more sensible because none of the means used in option one (shared work, flexible contractual arrangements, more flexible working hours, etc.) has brought the desired results. In my opinion, option two offers more potential and is quite suitable for the European Union. One of the possibilities is the creation of a European public sector so that the European Union begins to function as an entity that creates job opportunities.

Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first I would like to applaud the remarkable job done by my colleague Mrs Morin, who has spoken up for the positions of our political group. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 9

At the risk of going off on a tangent, I would like to ask about the role of the social partners, which seem conspicuous by their absence from this report. We are working according to Article 128, which means we are going to make recommendations to the Member States, but I believe the time has come to move towards greater action. Commissioner, what are your feelings about the application of Article 139 of the Treaty, which provides for precisely this possibility, that of the social partners creating Community level employment law? How can we have an employment policy without coordination of social law? I think that in application of Article 138, Commissioner, it is up to you to promote the social partners; we need to involve them in the creation of proper European social legislation.

Danutė Budreikaitė (ALDE). – (LT) The first stage of implementation of the objectives of the renewed Lisbon Strategy for growth and jobs has already yielded considerable results: in 2007 3.5 billion posts were created in the EU and the level of unemployment in the period 2005-2007 dropped by 1.6%. However, this is just one side of the story. In the EU today as many as 14 million working people are living in poverty. In addition, the number of people forced to work under temporary contracts or part time has constantly increased. Young people in the EU are facing very serious problems too – around 6 million young people leave school early and the employment rate among young people is less than half that in the EU in general. I would like to point out that the speed and efficiency of implementation of the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy for growth and jobs differs greatly in the various Member States. I urge the Commission to ensure the consistent implementation of the European Employment Strategy and lifelong learning objectives set out in the EU Youth Programme, the EU Gender Equality Agreement and the EU Disability Action Plan 2006-2007.

Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, may I now draw attention to two services that need to be strengthened throughout Europe. One of them is the advice, information and guidance given to young people and employees of every age to enable them to find suitable employment, education and lifelong learning. The other service that should be strengthened throughout Europe in order to promote dignified working conditions is the labour inspectorate. Labour inspectorates will be able to deal with unregistered labour, which is the scourge of legitimate employment. Employment as well as entrepreneurship and cooperation with the social partners represent perhaps our best hope in the years up to 2010.

Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, the current economic situation in the European Union is improving. We are seeing a rise in GDP, new jobs are appearing, the level of employment is rising and the level of unemployment is falling. To keep this process going, we need to strengthen social integration, and especially, firstly, to help young people in particular – those just entering the labour market – to find work. Secondly, we should make it easier for people in difficult material circumstances to find work; and thirdly, we should give the long-term unemployed a chance. These are areas in which more effective support and action on the part of the European Union are needed. It is important to adapt the education and training system so that it meets the requirements of the Lisbon Strategy and facilitates economic development, which will in turn have the effect of creating more jobs.

Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I believe that small- and medium-sized enterprises in particular play a major role in employment. After all, two thirds of our employees work in small- and medium-sized enterprises, which generate 50% of gross national income. Therefore, in drawing up our strategies, we should be focusing on promoting continuing vocational training in small- and medium-sized enterprises and creating new opportunities for writing off emerging costs and ensuring that higher net wages will ultimately become possible for our employees.

Ultimately, we should also create the infrastructure to enable our employees to enjoy job security. The European Union could provide a best practice model here.

Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. − (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, strict Parliament rules do not allow me to reply to your speeches in detail. However, allow me to thank you for the substantial debate, which 10 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

analysed many aspects of the labour market and of the European Employment Strategy, and allow me to talk about just a few fundamental issues. Firstly, the European Employment Strategy has brought tangible results. The current statistics on unemployment and employment are much better than they have been since the 1980s, which is a clear success. In your debate you often expressed your worries concerning quality jobs. I want to point out that the concept of more jobs and more quality jobs is a part of the Lisbon Strategy for growth and employment. What is the result? Of the millions of new jobs, more than half are full-time jobs and there can be no question marks over their quality. Many of the remaining jobs are part-time jobs or fixed-term jobs. In my opinion, the hypothesis that none of the fixed-term and part-time jobs is a high-quality job does not hold water. It is not tenable. Many of these jobs are quality jobs. However, there is no doubt that some of these jobs are not quality jobs and this is one of the areas that we must sort out. My personal view is that the problem of the working poor, that is, the people who continue to be poor despite having a job, is very worrying and we have to pay more attention to it. According to the available data, the working poor account for approximately 8% of the working population, which is a considerable amount. We are talking about millions of people and this is a very pressing issue. Another issue you debated is the link between employment policies and social inclusion. Let me point out that Guideline No 19 puts emphasis on an inclusive labour market and on promoting the inclusion of disadvantaged people in the labour market. This is because the Commission recommended in the Strategy that substantial changes should not be made to these Guidelines. This is because they have proved to be successful and because it has become clear that in order to ensure good governance, a better balance between European and national level (indeed, most Member States expressed such views), it would be best not to expand the Guidelines. On the other hand, it is clear that the text is not cast in stone, that it will continue to develop and that the topics you mentioned are undoubtedly the topics that will require an appropriate response in accordance with future developments. I would like to answer another question concerning the application of Article 139 of the Treaty. Paradoxically, the collective agreement in the maritime sector will be signed today, and it has already been decided to introduce this collective agreement into European legislation through Article 139. In other words, this is a concrete step showing that this article has not been neglected. By the way, I see the maritime sector agreement as an extremely important step forward because this is a very complex and highly international sector, and the social partners have managed to achieve a significant amount. Of course there were other topics in the debate: the issue of education, the significant number of early school leavers, lifelong learning. All these topics are important and to a certain extent will be included in the new social agenda. Regarding inclusion, I would like to draw your attention to the Commission communication on active inclusion, which is one of the documents outlining the Commission’s strategy in this area. Let me stress that although the labour market is the basis for active inclusion, it does not extend to all areas where the application of a coherent inclusion policy is needed. Since there are clearly many people who are outside the labour market for natural reasons, such as pensioners or people who find themselves in various unusual circumstances, the inclusion policy must cover more than just the labour market. The European labour market strategy clearly has to take this aspect into account. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you once more for the debate, which, in my opinion, covered most of the important topics concerning the European labour market. I think that they make a significant contribution to the process of finding a better and more effective balance between the European Employment Strategy and the activities of the individual Member States. As I said before, there were many very interesting comments made in the course of the debate but Parliament’s rules make it impossible for me to respond to all of them, which is why I responded to only a few.

Anne Van Lancker, rapporteur. − (NL) First and foremost, I should like to thank my fellow Members most warmly for their contribution to this debate. I think it is clear that many of you have placed emphasis upon equal opportunities, social inclusion and the quality of work, and I consider that very important. I am sorry if I have disappointed some of you by not having included even more of your amendments, but I truly wanted to avoid this report becoming a Christmas tree laden with too much tinsel and too many baubles. One more thing, in response to a comment made by Mr Andersson, Chair of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. I sincerely hope that the submission of this report is not in vain, because, although Article 128 of the Treaty grants this Parliament the right to be consulted, in practice this right is at risk of being undermined. I realise, Commissioner, that it is important for the Council to be able to take a decision 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 11

early in the year, so that the National Reform Plans can be developed with the social partners. It strikes me as essential, therefore, that, if Parliament is to be able to continue playing its role, the suggest proposals earlier in the year, so that the three institutions can fully exercise their role in the process, as provided for in the Treaty. Once more, I should like to thank all my fellow Members, and let us hope that the Council is still keeping its ear to the ground.

President. − The debate is closed. The vote will take place today at 12 noon. Written statements (Rule 142)

Adam Bielan (UEN), in writing. – (PL) According to the latest European Commission reports, 16% of EU citizens are threatened by poverty, and in 8% of such cases this is despite full-time employment. Poverty threatens 13% of adult Poles, including those in full time employment. Ladies and gentlemen, the region of Małopolska, which I represent in the European Parliament, has the lowest level of unemployment in , currently standing at 8%; this does not guarantee a secure standard of living, however, as galloping food and energy prices are pushing many families to the brink of poverty. In the neighbouring Świętokrzyskie province, which I also represent in the EP, the situation is verging on the dramatic, with double the unemployment seen in Małopolska. Taking just these two provinces as an example, we can observe a growing level of social inequality. As Mrs Van Lancker correctly comments in her report on employment guidelines, in the European Union we are faced with a situation in which more than 14 million working people are living in poverty. This number could rise very rapidly if we do not modify the Lisbon Strategy to create more and better-quality jobs in the EU. This problem concerns the new Member States in particular, where differences in the affluence of citizens are greatest compared to the rest of the Member States.

Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PL) Growth and employment are key elements in the Lisbon Strategy. The building of a competitive and innovative Europe is linked to changes in the labour market. Our companies need workers who are capable of responding to new challenges and the demand for change. Of course, I agree that employment should provide stability, security and assurance with regard to what tomorrow will bring. At the same time, relations between the employer and the employee should be sufficiently flexible to allow entrepreneurs to make the changes with which they are faced owing to the market situation. This is why it is so important for entrepreneurs and employees to ensure that they upgrade their abilities, enhance their skills and improve professionally. This is in the interests of businesses, which will acquire skilled and highly motivated employees. It is also in the interests of the employees themselves, who, because of their greater competence, will acquire a stronger position at work and, in the event of a need for change, the assurance that, thanks to their skills, they will not have any problems finding their feet in the labour market. Finally, I would like to draw attention to the element of mobility in the European market. As we know, many Member States are still maintaining restrictions on the employment of citizens from the new Member States. This is despite warning from representatives of the business world that there is a shortage of labour in many sectors of the economy. As long as restrictions in the European labour market remain in place, the of employees and freedom of movement of services in Europe will only go half-way towards determining the success of our economies.

Monica Maria Iacob-Ridzi (PPE-DE), in writing. – (RO) The revised Lisbon Strategy has led to positive results. Nevertheless, we should examine those fields where it is still necessary to increase the number of actions taken at Community level in order to achieve the employment objective.

I refer particularly to the problems young people meet during their qualification and entry on the labour market. 6 million young people across the European Union leave the educational system before they turn 18. The fact that, out of the total number of unemployed persons in the European Union, over 40% are young people is just as serious. Moreover, most of the young people who manage to enter the labour market 12 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

benefit of less favourable employment conditions, such as part-time, limited employment or employment based on a contract of supply of services. By the legislative guidelines for the employment policy, we have to provide more solutions regarding the programmes and funds the European Union establishes for supporting the action of Member States in this field.

Magda Kósáné Kovács (PSE), in writing. – (HU) The Employment Directive provided the Member States of the enlarged European Union with long-term guidelines, and with goals and instruments for enhancing competitiveness and increasing employment in the second cycle of implementation of the Lisbon Strategy. It has since become clear that an economy cannot be competitive and efficient in a world that has to live with competition, and cannot advance more rapidly than the rest, if it has lost its way in the social desert and is attempting to achieve this while surrounded by people at risk of social exclusion. A life of dignity requires decent work; this in turn requires a potential labour force that is appropriately qualified and capable of updating its skills, a labour force that is healthy and protected from discrimination. In 2006, the acknowledged needs of the new Member States made it necessary to revise the directive. This time the emphasis was placed on people facing particular disadvantages in the labour market, the hopeless labour market situation of older women, the isolation of specific languages, and issues relating to the employment of Roma people. Over the past two years, the number of jobs has risen, employment ratios have improved, and the turbulent employment indicators have also settled down. The increase in jobs of the classic sort – full-time, contractually protected employment in a workplace – has been relatively slow, while there has been a massive increase in part-time, seasonal work and work carried out on the basis of supply contracts. In this changed situation, we do not dispute that the era of dogmatic labour legislation is over. Extensive and intensive economic development needs flexible legislative provisions that prevent relativism in labour law and the devaluation of social partnership and collective bargaining agreements.

6. Progress made in equal opportunities and non-discrimination in the EU (debate)

President. − The next item is the report (A6-0159/2008) by Mrs Lynne, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on progress made in equal opportunities and non-discrimination in the EU (the transposition of Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC) (2007/2202(INI)).

Elizabeth Lynne, rapporteur. − Mr President, I would like to thank the other groups for their cooperation, particularly some of the shadows. I believe that working together we have achieved a good report. I have looked in this report at the transposition and implementation of the current directives, in other words the Employment Directive and the Race Directive. I have concentrated more on the Employment Directive, because race was covered by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs in a very good report last year. Transposition and implementation is patchy across the EU, especially with the Employment Directive, although there are problems with the Race Directive as well. There is also a lack of information given to citizens about possible remedies in case of discrimination. The Commission, Member States, trade unions, as well as governmental and non-governmental stakeholders, must do all in their power to improve awareness of rights under these directives and Member States must adequately resource independent bodies to promote equality and encourage Member States to ensure the remit of those bodies covers all forms of discrimination. Too often the individual victims of discrimination are the ones who are left to challenge discrimination on their own, without the back-up of advocacy support or indeed the legal wherewithal to take legal proceedings, and that has to change. Member States should ensure that victims of discrimination are automatically assured and assisted in legal proceedings. Although I welcome the statistics that the Commission has already gathered on discrimination, I believe we need more data and a common standard for collecting that data. I welcome the Commission’s interest in multiple discrimination and that is one of the reasons why I call in my report for comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation. We must get away from the piecemeal approach. There can be no hierarchy of discrimination. A new directive must cover discrimination and access to goods 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 13

and services on all grounds that have not been covered as yet under Article 13 legislation. It should cover disability, age, religion or belief and sexual orientation. Race and gender are already covered, as is employment. I regret that although Commissioner Špidla has committed himself to this and the Commission made the commitment to a horizontal directive in its work programme for 2008 – and I commend Commissioner Špidla particularly for this – there appears to be some backtracking on this within the Commission. Can the Commission tell us at what stage are the impact assessments, what they cover, and when they will be released? As I understand it, they are now saying that they might only bring forward legislation on disability and nothing else. That is not acceptable, hence our amendment. I have campaigned for years for Article 13 legislation on grounds of disability and on grounds of age, but I am now convinced that we must not leave anyone behind. Anti-discrimination and human rights are the basis of the European Union and every EU citizen must be treated equally. I urge you to vote for my report and more importantly for a comprehensive directive on anti-discrimination so we can give a signal to those in the Commission who do not agree with this, and the Member States, that we are committed as a Parliament at least to ending discrimination once and for all, and end the ridiculous idea that it is alright to discriminate against any one section of our society. (Applause)

IN THE CHAIR: MR COCILOVO Vice-President

Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. − (CS) Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to thank Mrs Lynne for her detailed and topical report. The Commission fully agrees with its content. The Commission supports unequivocally the calls for the complete transposition of Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC. As you know, the Commission has initiated a number of legal proceedings involving some Member States because of non-compliance with legislation, and it will not hesitate to make use of its competences to ensure that EU legislation is rigorously complied with in the future, and to achieve a fast and systematic improvement in cases where this legislation has not yet been implemented. The Commission also acknowledges that monitoring of the implementation of both Directives must be improved. Therefore, the Commission is currently working on programmes to improve the recording of cases of discrimination. The truly important issue is the real impact on individuals, not just an abstract image of how things might work. The report also rightly underlines the fundamental role of the institutions in supporting equal treatment: they play a key role in monitoring, providing support for victims and improving awareness of rights. I would like to stress the crucial importance of the non-governmental sector in this area. The Commission supports an expansion of the role of the institutions and the role of the non-governmental sector in such a way that would cover discrimination on grounds other than ethnic origin and gender. As stated in the Commission’s Work Programme for 2008, I intend to table an amendment based on Article 13 of the EC Treaty, which would extend the existing protection against discrimination to areas outside the labour market. This will be included in the broader programme for opportunities, attitudes and solidarity that is due to be adopted at the end of June. Lively political discussions are taking place about the need for further anti-discrimination legislation at EU level. Let us be clear: these discussions are not about whether or not to combat discrimination but rather about how to do it in the most effective manner. Considering the political sensitivity of this issue and the far from forthcoming attitude of some Member States, the ground must be prepared very carefully. During the seminar of 29 April, held ahead of the launch of the renewed social agenda, we agreed that we needed more in-depth analyses before making a decision on the best course of action. Whatever the Commission’s decision in the next few weeks, it will be a decision based on a detailed analysis. It will take into account all aspects of multiple discrimination and the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. Most importantly, it will be designed to bring real benefits to those who need it. In conclusion, I would like to mention that as a follow-up to the European Year of Equal Opportunities, the Commission plans to present a communication adopting concrete measures to improve protection against 14 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

discrimination in the European Union. Together with this communication, the Commission will also publish a report on how EU policies contribute to improving the situation of the Roma people.

Tatjana Ždanoka, Draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. − Mr President, first of all I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Lynne, from the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs as well as on behalf of my political group, for her excellent work and this excellent report. Unfortunately, discrimination still remains one of the most significant and widespread human rights problems in the European Union. As to anti-discrimination directives already in force, I would like to stress that they provide for only minimum standards. It is a shameful situation that a number of Member States have not transposed and implemented even those minimum standards. We think the European Commission should use the infringement procedure against such Member States more actively. Everyone in the Union must be sure that he or she cannot be discriminated against and that he or she has effective legal tools in order to fight against discrimination. The Member States and the Commission should also actively support awareness-raising and training for combating discrimination. Another problem, as we have just heard today, makes me even more anxious. It is that we really need a comprehensive legal framework for combating discrimination. As far as I understood from the statement of the Commissioner, we cannot be sure just now that the work programme declared by the Commission for 2008, which we have welcomed very much, with the proposal for a directive implementing the principle of equal treatment outside employment on all grounds, will provide this.

For me it would be a real shock if the Commission excluded some grounds from the scope of protection. It would mean that we can easily give up our values and, as soon as the Year of Equal Opportunities is over, we again feel free to treat Europeans differently. We cannot allow this.

Edit Bauer, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (HU) Thank you, Mr President. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, opposing discrimination is a fundamental human value; in this regard there is no difference of opinion among us. The European People’s Party attaches particular importance to anti-discrimination policy. It is our belief that Member States have an incontrovertible and unavoidable responsibility to ensure that not a single citizen of the European Union faces discrimination. The Group is also aware that not all problems, unfortunately, can be resolved by means of legislation. In order gradually to put an end to discrimination, we need an appropriate political culture, we need tolerance in daily life, in the workplace, in public life, in communications, from national to local level, and we need the whole of civil society to pull together. As practice has shown, implementing the European directives on discrimination is no easy task. Half of the Member States have not managed to transpose the directives adequately into their national legislation or apply them appropriately. It is a fact that a real gap exists in European legislation between Article 13 of the EC Treaty and the existing directives. This means that not all ‘protected’ groups, in other words those referred to in Article 13, are guaranteed equal rights under European law with regard to access to goods and services. To bridge this gap, however, the European People’s Party does not believe the solution lies in adopting a comprehensive directive that would be difficult to implement and inefficient. Instead, it feels that a European directive is needed as a matter of urgency to help in a non-hierarchical manner to end discrimination against the 84 million disabled people who live in Europe, so that people living with a disability can enjoy the same rights throughout the EU. Bearing in mind the fact that the average lifespan of the population is increasing and age-related chronic illness often results in damage to a person’s health, the number of people living with a disability is set to increase in future. We are convinced that this approach will provide more effective, practical help to people living with a disability. The Group would therefore support an initiative of the European Commission with this aim. Thank you.

Magda Kósáné Kovács, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (HU) Thank you, Mr President. Mrs Lynne’s excellent report is based on the responsibility that derives from the presence in our midst of the phenomenon of negative discrimination. Not only has it not disappeared from the Europe of Excellence; according to the Eurobarometer survey it is on the increase, and Europe’s citizens can sense this. I would also like to add that enlargement has brought with it a rise in new forms of discrimination threat, such as those facing multiply disadvantaged people; discrimination against the Roma is becoming increasingly violent nowadays. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 15

The majority of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs voted in favour of adopting a horizontal directive. We all remember the traces of mistrust in Parliament towards the newly formed Commission, a mistrust that became the majority opinion due to one nominee’s avowed views on discrimination. The Commission at that time promised that it would take action on the basis of the authority conferred on it under Article 13 of the EC Treaty to introduce legislation against all forms of discrimination and establish a legal basis for dealing with infringements. It is also a matter of urgency for the Commission to assess the transposition of existing European Union legislation by Member States, and also to initiate infringement procedures for non-transposition of the existing directives. As far as the Socialist Group in the European Parliament is concerned, it is unacceptable for any sort of hierarchy to be established, whether in the EC Treaty or in the prohibitions relating to discrimination that are to be listed in the amendment to the Lisbon Treaty. The question of who suffers the most – people living with a disability, gay people or older people – is not one we are prepared to address. As far as we are concerned, the proposal in Mrs Lynne’s report is a potential legal solution; in other words we await a general, horizontal directive from the Commission, although of course this does not rule out, indeed will make necessary, the formulation of specific provisions for different sectors and other cases. It is my belief that this is also in accord with the views of European citizens who are, or may become, victims of discrimination. Thank you very much.

Bernard Lehideux, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Lynne, your work and your commitment on this key dossier have been remarkable. I was one of the first people from our group to witness this within the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, and I thank you warmly. A protective law only works if it is effectively applied. That is why, Mrs Lynne, I share your concern about the poor implementation of directives prohibiting discrimination in certain Member States. These situations are unacceptable and should be the subject of forceful, deliberate action by the Commission. No indulgence can be tolerated in this area. A protective law is also worthless unless it can actually be used by those it is designed to protect. That is why I believe, as you do, that we need to make sure that the victims of discrimination do indeed have access to information and to the means for defending themselves. That is the responsibility of the Member States, and there again, negligence should not be tolerated. However, although your report represents a key step, this is mainly because of the comprehensive approach to discrimination you speak up for. I unreservedly support your request for a comprehensive directive to combat all forms of discrimination. Like you, I am convinced that a unified approach is essential, taking account of all grounds for discrimination. Article 13 is not a call for lack of action or for uncoordinated action, but an invitation to act. Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, put away your fears and theoretical debates. Proposing a comprehensive directive is a necessity and is plain common sense. There is a large majority of us here that believes this and is asking you, Commissioner, to listen.

Jean Lambert, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, we too welcome the Lynne report and fully support the commitment to a comprehensive directive and see this as part of the cultural shift that Mrs Bauer referred to. But we can hear the eggshells cracking as the Commission tries to edge forward on this and we urge the Commission to be really brave and really lead on this issue. For us we think it is important to have comprehensive legislation. For example, it would remove some of the loopholes by which racists and xenophobes try and exploit religious discrimination in order to cover their racist attitudes. It is important that we get rid of some of those arbitrary cut-off points, for screening and health care for example, on grounds of age rather than evidence-based.

And we can fully support the rapporteur in her desire for a proactive approach in people being made aware of their rights and being able to access them. Through the need for effective legal aid and strong independent bodies. We therefore welcome this report and support it in its current form. 16 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

Jan Tadeusz Masiel, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, I congratulate Mrs Lynne on a very hands-on report on this important subject. I am, however, a little taken aback at the language in which it is expressed, which reminds me a little of the language of totalitarianism. Had I not known that the rapporteur was a member of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Demonstrate for Europe, I would have thought that this report had been drawn up by someone from the Communist side. In my view it is dangerous to go into detail, as has been done here, and to spell out which types of discrimination should not be allowed, and how we should behave; there should simply be no discrimination. Mankind established all of its orders and prohibitions in the Ten Commandments, and they are spelled out there in succinct form: thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery. We should just say: thou shalt not discriminate, and leave the rest to the sensitivity and competence of human groups and Member States. I do, however, consider this report acceptable, assuming that Amendment 7 by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats is accepted.

Bairbre de Brún, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – Mr President, Liz Lynnes’s report highlights the need for a comprehensive, legislative framework which would prevent discrimination outside of the workplace and which would include a wide range of subjects. Millions of people are discriminated against – the elderly as well as other groups – everyday in the European Union as they try to access health, education and transport services or try to buy insurance or apply for a loan. These same groups had difficulties as regards employment before the introduction of stronger legislation at the European level. Effective legislation at European Union level changed employers' attitudes. It was a European directive which forced Member States to try to end discrimination in employment – although there is still a lot work to be done yet. Comprehensive legislation must be undertaken at a European level in order to strengthen people’s rights in terms of goods and services. I would like to praise the rapporteur for her report and I would like to ask my fellow members to vote against amendments which weaken the protection of human rights.

Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE). – Mr President, for the past nine years I have sat in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs alongside my most distinguished UK West Midlands colleague, the current rapporteur Elizabeth Lynne. Almost without exception we have found ourselves in agreement on pretty well every issue without any need to negotiate compromise amendments because we already had a close meeting of minds. I suppose to any rule there has to be an exception and to my intense surprise, this report is just that. It is frankly most disappointing that in our view political posturing seems to have got in the way of addressing the real problem. May I say straight away, before some others on the left get up to their usual distortions, that all of us on the centre-right abhor discrimination in all its forms. All of us on the centre-right want to find practical ways of helping to stamp it out, and indeed would support, in principle, a specific directive to help people with disabilities as currently being considered by the Commission. But we are very clear that a ‘comprehensive and broad’ EU directive against discrimination which is essentially an open-ended invitation to the Commission to produce yet more ‘one-size fits all’ EU legislation in what is a very sensitive area will do little to address current difficulties and could even be counterproductive. We have tabled our own amendments to reinforce this point. Whilst some aspects of ongoing discrimination may indeed still be a problem, to suggest that more general EU legislation is somehow a solution is, in our view, way off the mark. Existing EU laws on discrimination continue to prove difficult to implement in practice. There needs to be better implementation of existing laws and better understanding of the problems in implementation before we go down the road of yet more EU directives.

As one UK organisation put it most succinctly last week, most discrimination is not going to be solved by extra legislation. Time would be much better spent on multicultural, multifaith events that change perceptions. We agree with this. May I thank the Commission for his thoughtful opening remarks and say how much we look forward to the Commission response in due course. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 17

Stephen Hughes (PSE). – Mr President, I think Philip Bushill-Matthews’ criticism underlines just how good Elizabeth Lynne’s report is! I think she is to be congratulated. She has done a very good job of underlining the poor level of implementation and transposition of the two directives adopted back in the year 2000 on risk and discrimination in employment. But back then, Commissioner, you and the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs here recognised that discrimination does not stop at the office or factory wall. We recognised then the need to act more broadly to introduce a horizontal directive to combat all forms of discrimination throughout the whole of society. You publicly stated that you supported that idea; your President, President Barroso, publicly committed himself to such a horizontal directive. We are therefore very disturbed to hear that back-pedalling is going on inside the Commission, reconsideration, perhaps a focus only on disability. I am hearing that three possible options are being considered in the Commission at the moment: the horizontal directive, which is still alive; secondly, a specific directive on disability or, the third possibility, a directive on disability and one other form of discrimination. Where the logic is in that final option I just do not know. We need a strong advocate right now, Commissioner, for that horizontal directive that you committed yourself to. As Elizabeth Lynne said, there can be no hierarchy of forms of discrimination within the European Union. All European Union citizens are equal and need to be dealt with as such. We cannot tolerate any discrimination on any grounds against any section of our Community. I heard it said at a meeting last week in Brussels, and you hinted at it yourself today, Commissioner, and Philip Bushill-Matthews did so just now, that we should not act because infringement proceedings have been launched against a number of Member States for failure to comply with the earlier directives. We cannot take that line of argument. We cannot allow Member States to force us to act at the speed of the slowest in terms of implementation and then enforcement. You, Commissioner, have the right of initiative. You need to exercise that right. We need to act rigorously. You need to act rigorously to ensure full compliance and not allow Member States to enter into a conspiracy that would cause us to move at the speed of the slowest. We also need to focus clear attention on the need for remedies and enforcement, strong remedies to make sure that Member States do indeed comply fully with those directives agreed back in the year 2000. I fully commend Elizabeth Lynne’s report.

President. − I would like to pause for a moment to welcome, on behalf of all of us here in Parliament, the various visitor groups in the gallery. Let us continue with the debate.

Sophia in ’t Veld (ALDE). – Mr President, in 2004, this European Commission got the green light of the European Parliament only upon the solemn promise to be the champion of fundamental rights. But paying lip-service to equality is not good enough. EU citizens must get the legal instruments to defend their rights in court. Now, the European Commission is frantically looking for excuses to avoid a general ban on discrimination, such as that more study is needed – as if we cannot all see that there is discrimination all around – or that there is no consensus in the Council – well, that never stopped the European Commission from pushing its proposals in other areas such as energy policy. And let us not forget that discrimination is already forbidden on the basis of the Treaties, but if we do not legislate the courts will do it for us. So I expect the European Commission to take its own responsibility and stand for the rights of European citizens, because if the horizontal directive must fail, then let it fail in Council and not in the Commission. (Applause)

Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs in ’t Veld has said it clearly and I can only point out once again: we need the framework directive in order to grant everyone the same protection against discrimination. It is not acceptable that homosexuals or the elderly, for example, are allowed fewer human rights than people from a migrant background. We must end this situation as a matter of real urgency. Moreover, I can but remind you once again that Mr Barroso himself promised here – when he was canvassing for Parliament’s approval of the Commission – to launch this framework directive. As a German I have to say that I find the conduct of the German Government cynical. There is a law in Germany that protects all attributes equally, but the government is leading a campaign here at European level against the framework directive without any plausible reasons. In my view this is sheer populism at the expense of human rights. 18 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, the fight against discrimination, whether on the basis of religion, gender or disability, is one of the pillars on which the European stands. That policy is laid down in all of our Treaties and in legislation. With regard to the fight against direct or indirect discrimination on the basis of gender, that policy has proved a complete success in the European Union. We can now test the situation against the directives and treaties and subsequently establish that, despite having the most complex legislative process in the world, the policy is not functioning well. You then have a choice of two courses. The course of the opposition is for us to introduce a new, broadly based strategy and solve the problems in that way. I do not think that it can be done this way. This was evidenced by the legislation of 2000, under which infringement procedures were instituted against 10 Member States, including the , owing to lack of clarity in the functioning of certain provisions in their legislation on equal treatment. New, broadly based legislation will not help either, therefore, meaning that it will all continue to be just talk. We should therefore increasingly focus upon mentality and on action programmes, and ensure that discrimination, even indirect discrimination, no longer takes place. We must ensure that implementation improves, and then we shall also have to find a solution to the problems that can be formulated clearly, namely those of persons with disabilities. I wholeheartedly endorse the plea of Mrs Bauer and that of a number of Members from our group, therefore, and hope that our splendid legislative framework is now actually going to be put into practice. Thank you very much.

Lissy Gröner (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mrs Lynne for her report; it comes just at the right time. A word to all Members of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats: wage discrimination against women has been included in the Treaty for the last 40 years, yet, nothing has essentially changed. If you in the PPE-DE Group wish to abide by your rejection of a horizontal directive, it is very clear to me that your values and principles relate to fine words and celebrations in the European Union. You do not want equal treatment at all! You accept discrimination against gays and lesbians, for example. You want this to be a political culture. No, that will not do for me! Equal opportunities encompass all the criteria of Article 13, and multiple discrimination ultimately has to be included, too. Anti-discrimination policy can only be credible if it itself does not discriminate further. There has been a flood of proceedings and actions in the European Union. This was all propaganda aimed at avoiding certain minimum standards. The Member States that have stopped short of this just have to make haste. Infringement procedures have been initiated, even against my own country, Germany. I now appeal to the Commission, to each individual Commissioner, to state clearly that they are in favour of a clear horizontal directive and putting paid to a hierarchic arrangement of human rights in the European Union. We have to implement our EU policy in accordance with the Treaty. Article 13 is part of the Treaty and must therefore encompass all this, as stated in the Lynne report.

Marco Cappato (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mrs Lynne for her work. Parliament is about to call again for a horizontal directive. It will be the ninth time, Commissioner Špidla, that it has done this. Since Parliament is requesting exactly this step for the ninth time, we would have expected greater clarity in the Chamber from the Commission today, partly because this represents a commitment from President Barroso, and partly because we believe in the impact assessment process which is under way. Frankly, this idea of some Members from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats opposing a horizontal directive is incomprehensible. In the past, the left was justifiably criticised for wanting to divide society into corporations and corporate representation. It seems, however, that this is just what you are trying to do now: the disabled, yes, because this is more politically correct; other forms of discrimination, no, let us wait. Mrs Oomen-Ruijten is not here, but the left is also sometimes fond of saying that it takes more than laws to change attitudes. This time around, we are hearing it from members of the PPE-DE Group. Let us talk about individual rights and about how we must not play one corporation, one minority off against another, but ensure non-discrimination for all citizens. This makes sense, and this is what we are asking you to do. Quite 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 19

frankly we do not need measures biased more towards one category than another. EU citizens do not need this.

Anja Weisgerber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are all agreed on one thing: we are against any form of discrimination. I should like to clarify this right at the outset. However, there are different approaches to reaching this objective. I am of the opinion that protection against discrimination cannot conclusively be better regulated at European level than at national level. Here, too, we are expected to comply with the principle of subsidiarity. Many areas of life are currently regulated by EU anti-discrimination regulations. Four anti-discrimination directives have been adopted in recent years: the Race Directive, the Employment Directive, the Equal Treatment Directive and the Gender Directive. A multitude of infringement proceedings are currently in progress against Member States on account of problems in transposing the Treaty. Strictly speaking, they are even now in progress against 20 countries, that is three quarters of the EU Member States. It appears there is considerable legal uncertainty here. A new, broad and over-simplifying approach in the form of a framework directive is the wrong response to the legal uncertainties that exist here. The current problems first have to be examined before the Commission proposes new directives. Otherwise, the result otherwise will be more bureaucracy, more costs to citizens and less legal clarity, which benefits no one, particularly not the fight against discrimination. For this reason I, like my group, am against the articles in the Lynne report that call for a framework directive, a horizontal directive. If the other groups assert themselves, however, and the demand for a framework directive persists, I see myself being forced to vote against the report, not because I am against protecting against discrimination, but because a framework directive at European level is the wrong way, in my opinion. In the field of disability, all Member States as well as the European Community have signed the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Here we must and shall fulfil our obligations. We shall not, however, help anyone by adopting yet another unclear and wishy-washy framework directive.

Richard Howitt (PSE). – Mr President, when I was this Parliament’s co-rapporteur for the Race Directive in 2000, the then Portuguese Presidency promised us there would be no hierarchy of discrimination and that further legislation would follow. On 26 October 2004 President Barroso promised in this Parliament and during this Commission’s term of office a framework directive on – I quote – ‘all forms of discrimination’. That promise was repeated in their annual policy strategy for 2008. Now is the time to deliver. I would say that it is no excuse that Member States in some cases deliberately drag their feet on implementation of employment non-discrimination, but it is an excuse, and the Commission must not allow the slowest to dictate the speed of the rest. Two weeks ago I met with Federal Minister Zypries in Germany and Minister Follett in Britain. They are willing to talk. Give them something to talk about! I am proud that we collected 1.3 million signatures for disability legislation. But as this Parliament’s president of the Disability Intergroup, I place on record my support for a horizontal directive. You will not divide and rule. Finally, it is no good for the Conservatives to say that they abhor discrimination on the grounds of religion, age or sexual orientation, but then to vote against legislation on these grounds, denying equal rights to Europeans, gay, young and old and to religious minorities. And Business Europe should be ashamed of saying in its submission to the Commission consultation dated 12 October 2007, I quote: ‘Business Europe believes there is no evidence of discrimination on any of the grounds covered by Article 13’. The Commission’s own Business Test Panel showed 89% of the 293 companies surveyed said they wanted EU legislation for equal protection. They want it; Parliament will vote for it; Europe needs it. (Applause from the centre and left)

Holger Krahmer (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, I thank Mrs Lynne for spending time on the subject of anti-discrimination and I am completely on her side up to a certain point. However, dear Mrs Lynne, Mrs Schroedter, Mrs Gröner and Mrs in ’t Veld, you mean well, but you are not doing yourselves any favours in the end if you are now calling for another directive against discrimination that goes beyond what we already have in Europe. 20 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

I say this quite deliberately and quite bluntly here as a homosexual: you are not doing the people you want to protect any favours. There will ultimately be a far-reaching anti-discrimination regulation against the people whom you want to protect here. How can this be? If we extend anti-discrimination to access to goods and services and to a shifting of the burden of proof, we will create a climate of concealed discrimination. Very few employers will be openly willing to discuss discrimination. Job applicants who represent a potential risk, perhaps because of their passport photograph, will no longer be contacted by the employer in case of doubt. We are not doing people any favours in the end. We ought instead to be worrying about the fact that the anti-discrimination directive we have today is being changed and watching to see how it pans out. If we generate a tangled mass of bureaucracy and lawsuits as well as legal uncertainty, the acceptance of anti-discrimination regulations will decline among people in the European Union.

Carlo Fatuzzo (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have so much time that I hope I can use it properly, accustomed as I am to speaking for only a minute. I heard my colleague Mr Bushill-Matthews say that he always finds himself in agreement with Mrs Lynne, and that to any rule there has to be an exception, but that this time his position is completely different. I must say to my dear friend Mr Bushill-Matthews that we too always find ourselves in agreement, but this time, without wishing to betray our traditional convergence on all decisions, I have to say that you are faced with an exception, because I am absolutely in favour of the proposal for a horizontal directive referred to the Commission by Mrs Lynne. How could I not be in favour when for the past 40 years I have seen citizens in , where I live, being discriminated against on the grounds of their age, elderly people being deprived of their rights simply because they are elderly? I am particularly referring to the fact that there is a law in Italy which says that the disabled, if they are young, are entitled to benefits, whereas if they are elderly, and have the same disabilities, they are not entitled to these benefits. I do not see how we can wait for years before we have the legal possibility, as Mrs in’t Veld explained, of using the courts to enforce respect for the rights that Article 13 of the grants to all citizens of the European Union.

Zita Gurmai (PSE). – (HU) Ladies and gentlemen, European unity is based not only on the economy but also on many important values. These values include the inviolability of human dignity, liberty, responsibility, solidarity, diversity, and the observance of the principle of freedom from discrimination. They also include tolerance and mutual respect. Alongside the statements of policy, it is important that these principles should be laid down in law in such a way as to ensure that distinctions can no longer be made on a discriminatory basis, and that people are comprehensively protected. The European project will only be viable if we are able to ensure that disadvantaged groups in society are able to exercise their rights. Comprehensive integration of these groups is in our common interest, and we must take appropriate measures to ensure that it happens. It is thus in the interests of every Member State to ensure that all of the provisions of EC Directives 2000/43 and 2000/78 are transposed accurately and effectively in their entirety and implemented appropriately in practice, so that the transposition of the directives into national law will genuinely benefit disadvantaged groups. The legislation is only of value if it is also implemented in practice. Monitoring implementation of the legislation is an especially important task, and one that needs to be given particular attention at both Member State and Community level. We need to devise inspection mechanisms that will enable us to conduct impact studies. We must involve non-governmental organisations that can provide concrete feedback, and engage in social dialogue with them. I am convinced that Mr Barroso believed what he said in 2004, at the start of his term in office. May he continue to do so.

Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Mr President, I wish to comment on two aspects of this excellent report by Elizabeth Lynne. I fully support the call to Member States and other relevant actors to collect, compile and publish comprehensive, accurate, comparable, reliable and separate statistics on discrimination and then to publish these statistics in a way that is easily understood by the public. In that way, I believe citizens can see for themselves the need for change. I fully support the call for a comprehensive, wide-ranging directive. This is an area where the EU can achieve strategic change when the legislation is implemented. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 21

Finally, with reference to the Lisbon Treaty, I was very pleased to hear the comments of the Slovenian presidency last week on the 2008 work programme with regard to their response for the ‘One Million Signatures for Disability’ campaign. This indicates that the presidency, and hopefully the Commission, are listening to the citizens and taking their concerns on board. This is a very hopeful sign for the Citizens’ Initiative as contained in the Lisbon Treaty, but again I wish to put on record my strong support for a comprehensive directive. There can be no hierarchy of discrimination.

Pier Antonio Panzeri (PSE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I endorse the work accomplished by Mrs Lynne. I must say that this debate comes at an interesting time for Europe. I would like the Commission and yourself, Commissioner, to have the full awareness that you seem to be lacking at the moment. This issue does not just concern progress made in equal opportunities and non-discrimination in terms of employment and working conditions; the central issue is the need for a horizontal directive on equal treatment which covers all grounds for discrimination. A climate of intolerance and hostility is emerging in Europe. This is already giving rise to ethnic discrimination – just look at immigration and the Roma. Heaven help us if we turn a blind eye. This is why there is an urgent need for a comprehensive directive covering all discrimination in order to complete the anti-discrimination package under Article 13 of the Treaty. It will also help to improve the level of cross-cultural encounters in Europe; such encounters improve the quality of culture and are cogent, and are urgently needed now. This is why I say to you, Commissioner, and to the Commission, show a bit more political courage, because so far there has been absolutely none!

Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, employment is one of the main factors in social integration. Nevertheless, unemployment among numerous groups, especially women, disabled people, ethnic minorities, migrants, the elderly and young people entering the labour market, remains at an unacceptably high level. The fact that in some Member States substantial defects may be seen in the transposition and implementation of Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC, and a lack of information aimed at EU citizens concerning the possibility of taking legal steps in the event of discrimination, are cause for concern. It is important for the governments of the Member States to take down the barriers arising from discrimination in labour market recruitment processes as soon as possible. Public agencies have a key role to play in promoting equality and non-discrimination, since, pursuant to Article 13 of the EC Treaty, Member States should ensure full, proper and effective transposition and appropriate implementation of these directives, so that the battle against discrimination in the European Union is of the nature of actions that are coordinated and compliant with a consolidated approach to combating discrimination.

Metin Kazak (ALDE). – (BG) Mr. President, distinguished colleagues, the adoption and implementation of comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation in the European Union Member States is a tangible achievement and it is indicative of how sensitive a society is respecting the principles of equal treatment of all citizens, regardless of their ethnic origin, faith, gender, age, health or financial condition. I support the appeal which Mrs. Lynne makes in her report to adopt a comprehensive directive free of any hierarchy of anti-discrimination principles. We should, however, take note that in Europe discrimination against individuals who belong to ethnic or religious minorities remains the most frequent form of infringement against their fundamental right to be treated equally like the rest of the citizens from majority groups. In certain Member States hatred speech, islamophobia and other forms of xenophobia, fueled by stereotypes, prejudice and cliches from the past drive a latent discrimination attitude toward ethnic or religious minorities. That is why the European Parliament shown make a point of drawing the attention of the Commission and the Member States….

(Metin Kazak was interrupted by the President)

Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, we are all very much in agreement that every conceivable measure has to be taken against discrimination. Therefore, the European Parliament has also repeatedly 22 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

declared itself in favour of adopting a new directive. There are already four such directives and one is virtually complete at draft stage. This means we are covering a very broad spectrum in anti-discrimination measures. These measures will now finally be implemented. There are 28 infringement proceedings, which means the appeal is going out to the Member States ultimately to implement what has been decided here in this House. I am against taking a second step immediately before the first has been taken, namely adopting another new directive with a wealth of new barriers where equality authorities are being demanded. This again means more bureaucracy. The fact that NGOs must by law be included in all legislation does not get us any further forward with consultation etc. If we advocate anti-discrimination, then we have to argue in favour of implementing what is currently the law once and for all in the Member States.

Ewa Tomaszewska (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, I would like to comment on unacceptable discrimination against pregnant women, especially in view of the demographic collapse in Europe. Despite legal prohibitions, employers are demanding that young women applying for jobs present medical confirmation that they are not pregnant. If they fail to produce such a certificate, their chances of obtaining work vanish. This is a difficult but necessary field of action for the work inspectorate. Families with many children also experience discrimination. The average income per person in such families is usually significantly lower than in the families of single mothers. On the other hand, family benefits and social assistance are usually less in their case, and taxes are higher. Normally, when people speak of discrimination, they do not address these problems.

Gabriela Creţu (PSE). – (RO) Waiting for a horizontal directive, we can see that we have a European and a national legislation against discrimination, numerous political commitments, as well as specific institutional mechanisms. Despite this optimistic appearance, the degree of transposition, the implementation and the efficiency of adopted measures are still very low in many Member States. For achieving equality between men and women, a correctly paid job is essential. Thus, we propose that the Commission initiate an integrated plan of positive actions for the labour market in order to reduce the artificial gender division on the labour market and the structural pay gaps that still exist between the branches deemed feminine and those deemed masculine. In this plan, introducing the gender dimension into the drafting of the European, national and local budgets represents an essential instrument for reducing structural gaps and implementing the principle of equal pay for equal work.

Jim Allister (NI). – Mr President, when the rapporteur spoke she said that every EU citizen must be treated equally. Sadly, the rapporteur herself seems not to believe that. If she did, then this report would cry out against the fact that this EU, through a derogation, authorises discrimination on religious grounds in my constituency of Northern Ireland; specifically discrimination against Protestants who want to join the Police Service in Northern Ireland. Yes, in this EU there is express religious discrimination, sanctioned in that way. So when I listen to the high-sounding affirmations against discrimination I think of many young Protestant constituents who wanted to join the police, scored higher than Roman Catholic applicants, but who saw those people appointed over their heads because discrimination is statutory, provided for in legislation. So, until we get horizontal application against discrimination... (The President cut off the speaker)

Siiri Oviir (ALDE). – (ET) Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, equality in the eyes of the law and protection against discrimination is everyone’s human right - that much is asserted in the constitutions of our Member States, all of the Member States. Nevertheless our citizens are not exempt from discrimination. For example, generic equality of rights in employment is regulated under Community law; we have, however, placed a lesser emphasis on compliance with its implementation. How else can we explain ’s annual public studies which show large discrepancies between men’s and women’s pay in the Member States? In my home country, , the gap is 27% to women’s disadvantage. This is where it stood over ten years ago, and where it still stands today. Ensuring protection of this right is just as important as judicial regulation of the matter. We must deal with this point and if necessary institute legal proceedings for violation. What our citizens need is .

Neena Gill (PSE). – Mr President, my congratulations to Mrs Lynne on this directive because, in the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue, which aims to promote mutual understanding and celebrate Europe’s diversity, I am shocked and dismayed at the levels of existing discrimination – not just in race but in disabilities, gender, 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 23

sexual orientation and ageing. Discrimination is not just a problem in the labour market but also in housing, education, public and private services and even in religious matters. I am particularly concerned about the difference in levels of integration of minorities within various Member States as indicated by the Migrant Policy Index. This shows the failure of the implementation and enforcement of the minimum standards in anti-discrimination that we have sought to make EU-wide. I call upon the Commission to take up this matter, not just with the Member States, but also to take stronger action within the EU institutions. Finally, prior to the European elections, I would like to ask how this House is trying to set an example to the rest of Europe on anti-discrimination. Still only 30% of the MEPs are women and only 9 MEPs are non-white.

Thomas Mann (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, what is effective against discrimination and supports the protection of people with disabilities? Awareness-raising campaigns, information, action, but not the centralising of legal issues through new EU legislation. A paper tiger instead of a comprehensive horizontal directive perhaps? It is important to implement the four existing directives. Only in Germany have training courses that were required as part of the general Equality Act cost over EUR 1.7 billion a year. I think the Civil Rights Act is right. It provides regulations for firms with 15 employees or more and a high administrative and financial cost is avoided – an SME protection clause is appropriate. Moreover, I think it is important that our doubts, which Mrs Lynne was unfortunately still not able to dispel because she has not taken our amendments into account, are becoming clear: we cannot vote in favour of this report, which states that public money should be used to support victims of discrimination. Mrs Lynne should have listened to us here, but unfortunately she did not do so.

Miloslav Ransdorf (GUE/NGL). – (CS) I would like to mention two issues. The first one is transport. Approximately one third of the EU population suffer from mobility problems. In order to give people equal opportunities regarding access to information, work and so on, significant efforts are needed to introduce a barrier-free transport standard. The other issue concerns mentally handicapped people. I think it would be useful to review the White Paper on mental health protection, because a vast number of people in the European Union suffer from stress, which also represents a disadvantage for people adapting to situations on the labour market.

Gay Mitchell (PPE-DE). – On a point of order, Mr President, I recognise that I have not been called to speak, but what Mr Allister said about discrimination against Protestants in the police force in Northern Ireland is totally untrue. The force is 90% a Protestant organisation ... (The President cut off the speaker.)

Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. − (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, the debate showed the significance of combating discrimination. The first issue on which practically everyone agreed is the need for more effective implementation of the legislation in all the Member States. As the debate showed, the Commission is very rigorous in this regard and does not hesitate to initiate infraction proceedings against those countries that have not implemented the legislation in full. However, simple numerical statistics do not give the full picture since these numbers include various types of infraction proceedings, from technical and organisational proceedings to those dealing with the scope of protection. At any rate, I can safely say that all countries with which we are engaged in a debate are ready, and that there can be no doubt about their willingness to fully implement the anti-discrimination Directives. The next issue is the question of further progress with regard to legislation. I stated clearly that the Commission has reached the final stage in deciding on what conclusive action to take. This stage will end by June this year and we will present the relevant proposals. The debate now taking place in Parliament is certainly an important source in the decision-making process. Allow me also to touch on two speeches that contrasted with the more general debate by introducing a slightly unusual argument. One of them was the information that an anti-discrimination course in the Federal Republic of Germany cost EUR 1.7 billion. I do not contest this figure. I think that it might be quite interesting to compare it with the cost of tax legislation courses, for example. We might find out that similar transitional costs usually accompany legislative changes. In other words, purely financial arguments cannot give the full picture. 24 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

The other speech concerned the issue of policing in Northern Ireland. I can only say that, according to the information available to me, the Police Service of Northern Ireland has launched positive action to deal with the problem mentioned by Mr Allister. Ladies and gentlemen, the time allocated to us does not make it possible to continue this in-depth and very interesting debate. Suffice to say that we have entered an important decision-making phase and that your debate is part of this decision-making process.

IN THE CHAIR: MRS ROTHE Vice-President

Elizabeth Lynne, rapporteur. − Madam President, I should like to thank colleagues very much for their remarks. I am delighted that we appear to have the support of the majority of this House for a comprehensive directive. I hope the vote later today will prove that. I would also like to pay tribute again to Commissioner Špidla because I know it was his actual initiative to bring forward a comprehensive directive and call for the comprehensive directive within the work programme. I am only sorry that his view does not seem to be winning the argument with the rest of the Commission. And let us hope that, by passing the call for a comprehensive directive, we will give more power to him to actually argue the case. I did ask Commissioner Špidla for the impact assessments to be released. I know they have been done already. I am a little fearful since I have heard reports that there have been different impact assessments and those are being changed slightly as we speak to favour one view in the Commission rather than another. I would like some sort of clarification on that to see if the rumours that I have heard are true. I am very pleased that other Members have supported your call within the work programme for that comprehensive directive. Specific issues relating to all the areas – disability, age, religion or belief, and sexual orientation – can, I believe, be covered in one comprehensive directive. Education is not the way forward. We have tried that. For those Members who have been talking about education: it does not work. We are talking as well about access to goods and services, not about employment. I know that all of the German delegations have problems with that because the employment directive has been gold-plated by the German Government. So leave that one aside. There are different Member States who have different problems: disability, age, sexual orientation, religion or belief. Some Member States cover some of them, others cover others and that is why it is important to get it right and have a comprehensive directive and not leave anyone behind.

President. − The debate is closed. The vote will take place today at 12 noon. Written statements (Article 142)

Iles Braghetto (PPE-DE), in writing. – (IT) I would like to voice my appreciation of the work carried out by the rapporteur on a subject that I consider to be of enormous importance for the development of fairer and more effective European anti-discrimination policies. The principle of non-discrimination is in fact one of the core values that has always formed the basis for and must therefore be properly protected, so that European citizens, particularly those in the most disadvantaged categories, such as disabled people, are effectively protected against any form of discrimination. Non-discrimination is fundamental in employment, but is necessary and preferable in any sector of public life (such as education or social services) because it can greatly aid social inclusion and development of the potential of all European citizens.

I would like to conclude by voicing my support for the swift adoption of a complete and effective framework directive on non-discrimination, enabling Member States to join forces in this area and to adopt coherent and effective policies aimed at allowing citizens to feel truly protected by clear and comprehensive legislation at a European and national level. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 25

Genowefa Grabowska (PSE), in writing. – (PL) As a member of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, I entirely support Mrs Lynne’s report. I have no doubt that the international law in force and our own EU adjudications are – from a formal aspect – desirable and good solutions. I therefore regret that their entry into force is continually coming up against numerous obstacles, even in our Europe, which would appear to be more democratic and less discriminatory. It is astounding that we might need to call on EU Member States to treat the provisions of Directive 2000/78/EC with full respect and to carry out constant and systematic monitoring of progress in the elimination of all forms of discrimination from political, social and economic life. This is of particular importance for the citizens of my country, Poland, who, enjoying the benefits of the common market and freedom of personal movement, live and work in many EU countries. I am very sorry to have to say that there is increasing evidence of discrimination against my fellow countrymen solely on the grounds of their nationality. Disturbing information of this kind is increasingly coming to light from Germany, Great Britain and Ireland. It would be a paradox if the European Parliament were to become so heavily and effectively involved in combating manifestations of discrimination in the world yet were unable to cope with respect for human rights at home – that is, in the EU Member States. All EU citizens surely deserve equal and non-discriminatory treatment!

Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE), in writing. – (FI) The matter here is equal opportunities and non-discrimination in the European Union. Equal opportunities and non-discrimination at work are basic principles of employment, and the Member States should not have any problems complying with them. According to Mrs Lynne’s report, however, the directives are not being implemented effectively or correctly. The problem is a serious one because, as Mrs Lynne’s report states, combating discrimination and human rights are priorities in the EU under Article 13 of the EC Treaty. An example case in concerned a woman who was not eligible to receive unemployment security after she had finished caring for her disabled son. It is wrong that care work done at home is not properly appreciated and that the rules allow this sort of discrimination. With this case in mind, I support point 36 in Mrs Lynne’s report, which says that the scope of the principles of equality and non-discrimination should be broad and extend to social security. I am also in favour of Mrs Lynne’s call for the European Parliament to recommend the Member States to put more resources into and empower institutions which work to promote these principles. I also support her call for the status of NGOs to be firmed up, so that they too can address existing problems in the Member States more effectively and efficiently.

Katalin Lévai (PSE), in writing. – (HU) It is certainly relevant that Mrs Lynne’s report on equal opportunities is on the agenda for debate today. Just recently, on 17 May, we expressed our solidarity with transsexual, bisexual and gay people. On special days or occasions it is often the case that people look back at the past. Unfortunately, as the report shows, we still have a great deal to do as regards equal opportunities. Unemployment is still unacceptably high among women, migrants, people living with a disability, ethnic minorities, and those with very specific or unrecognised skills. In the field of employment, I therefore recommend introducing a European equal opportunities monitoring system that could provide support in the form of tax advantages and/or PR opportunities for employers that give prominence to creating equal opportunities. It would also set up a ‘blacklist’ of employers failing to meet the criteria at all. This would have a motivating effect on companies while at the same time giving job seekers new perspectives and clarity. Unfortunately, extremist and populist politics continue to spread in central and eastern Europe, but sometimes the picture we get from western Europe is a sad one too. Negative discrimination against Roma people is on the increase, and extremist forces are demolishing Roma dwellings. It is here that the great need for a European Roma Strategy, as proposed by the socialists, and the need for urgent action at European level are most apparent. Legislation in the Member States provides differing levels of protection against discrimination. There is often no uniform method of implementing the legislation, with the result that implementation is unsatisfactory. Efforts to implement the legislation need to be coordinated, taking into account the horizontal perspective of the European Union, national and local authorities, and ensuring general compliance. Prior 26 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

to adopting legislation, it would also be important to carry out the social impact study and annual evaluation of implementation by Member States.

Marianne Mikko (PSE), in writing. – (ET) Non-discrimination and human rights are basic values of the European Union. They form the foundation on which we seek to build a common future and there can be no compromise in their regard. That much is clearly stated in Article 13, which must serve as a guide on any issues relating to European citizens. Protection against discrimination on grounds of age, sexual orientation, religious belief or disability is absent today in areas such as social welfare, goods and services, health care and education. Unfortunately there is no EU legislation in those areas. If non-discrimination and human rights are of prime importance to us, then there can be no doubt that we need a single, horizontal directive which puts an end to the hierarchy of rights. To the situation in which discrimination is outlawed in one area but allowed in another. To the situation in which race and disability are substantially more protected than the other areas set out in Article 13. In the light of this report I call on the Commission not to back down from its promise and to draft a comprehensive directive to combat discrimination under Article 13 of the EC Treaty. In an unprecedented move, many European non-profit-making bodies have spoken in favour of a horizontal directive to provide this protection; similarly there are several umbrella organisations active in various fields in Brussels such as the European Women’s Lobby, AGE and several others. A horizontal directive on non-discrimination covering social welfare, goods and services, health care and education is the only way to promote human rights protection in the European Union. There is more than enough evidence of discrimination in all fields. The Commission must not close its eyes and recreate a hierarchy between rights in the European Union.

Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (PSE), in writing. – (HU) As President of the Intergroup for National Minorities, I welcome Mrs Lynne’s report, which takes stock of what has already been achieved with regard to freedom from discrimination, and outlines what needs to be done. Community legislation on freedom from discrimination is especially important because protecting the individual is not enough. People do not suffer discrimination as individuals, but as members of a group: for example, because they belong to an ethnic minority, because they are old, because they are women, because they have a disability, because they belong to a sexual minority, or because they are Roma. For this reason, the only way of effectively protecting individuals belonging to the various minority groups is by protecting the whole group. The report rightly points out that the two existing directives only lay down minimum requirements, and so we need to take matters further towards developing a Community-level policy against negative discrimination and a horizontal anti-discrimination directive. Likewise very important is the item in the report calling on the Commission to work towards establishing a common, EU-wide definition of the term ‘positive action’. The report also draws particular attention to the need for specific social protection for minority communities, and especially the Roma community. In this context I would like to remind you of Article 25 of the Ždanoka report, also on this topic, which points out the importance of participation by traditional national minorities in policy-making. According to this article, national minorities need a framework policy standard enabling them to participate effectively in decision-making processes concerning their identity by means of various forms of self-government or autonomy.

7. An Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union (debate)

President. − The next item is the report (A6-0163/2008) by Mr Piecyk, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on an integrated maritime policy for the European Union (2008/2009(INI).

Willi Piecyk, rapporteur. − (DE) Madam President, I am pleased that you are in the chair for a second time for a debate on maritime policy. You were also there a year ago. Commissioner, let us start with the good news. This evening the first European Maritime Day event will be taking place in St James’s Church in Lübeck. This church houses the international memorial for civil maritime navigation. Commissioner Barrot opened it last year. Captains will be discussing their living and working conditions there this evening. The pastors have been relying upon the Presidents of Parliament, the Council and the Commission to actually declare 20 May European Maritime Day this afternoon. This is a reason to rejoice and it should cause Europe to pay more attention to its seas. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 27

Only those who believe that a day such as this is also in fact maritime policy are indeed mistaken; a Maritime Day such as this should not degenerate into mere symbolism. That means it must be part of a political framework. Policy is required – for social matters, maritime safety and climate protection. Let us take living and working conditions on board ships: it is an evil anachronism that a whole range of social and employment protection regulations do not apply to seafarers. This has to change and the Commission also sees that it has to change. We await their initiatives here. The International Labour Organization adopted the Maritime Labour Convention in 2006. Three States have so far ratified it: the Bahamas, Liberia and the Marshall Islands. Where do Europeans actually stand here? If the Council wants to improve navigational and maritime safety, it simply has to do one thing: finally adopt the Erika III package. It is a bit much that the Council is dealing with this issue of maritime safety in such a dilatory manner. In the meantime, more than 12 months have elapsed since first reading in Parliament and so far we still do not have single united standpoint. The Erika and Prestige disasters should in fact be sufficient warning and reminder to take action at long last. The climate protection package, put forward by Commission President Barroso in January refers to the possibility of perhaps including maritime transport in emissions trading. This is too lax; it is not enough. In my view maritime policy has to achieve at least four things regarding climate protection: inclusion of maritime

transport in emissions trading - now, not whenever; a radical reduction in pollutant emissions – CO2, SO2

and NOX; and use of regenerative energies such as wind and solar energy. In the ports there has to be an end to ships’ engines producing their own energy to the detriment of people and nature. Conversely, we also need to supply energy from land, so ships in port must be connected up to a power outlet. In the North Sea and Baltic Sea we have dozens of old munitions from past wars. Formidable hazards arise from these. We therefore need a plan of action to identify and remove this old, harmful waste. In recent months we have learnt that pirates have carried out attacks on Europeans and European ships off the African coast. We therefore need clear international regulations and a support system on the high seas and we must protect not only the coasts from the seas, but also the seas from the coasts. The greatest hazard for the seas still comes from the land: 80% of all emissions of pollutants are caused by agriculture or industry. In order to find a remedy, European law must ultimately be applied and enforced here, too. When we declare 20 May European Maritime Day after the vote this afternoon, I hope that we will be able to say on 20 May next year: we have achieved a great deal in the meantime. You see how it was a precision landing. (Applause)

Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, I find it quite appropriate that we are holding the debate during the first celebration of European Maritime Day. It is, after all, a Member of Parliament, Ms Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, who first suggested the idea to President Barroso in the context of preparations for the Green Paper on a future maritime policy for the European Union. It is also thanks to Parliament, and, in particular, President Pöttering, who will be hosting the signing of a joint tripartite declaration, establishing European Maritime Day, later today. This celebration demonstrates how far we have come in developing, not only the integrated maritime policy, but a new vision for Europe’s oceans and seas. It also shows how involved all European institutions have been every step of the way. In fact, the Parliament has been a key player in developing the new integrated maritime policy both by organising a number of conferences where fruitful discussion and searching debate has been held, and by producing reports which guide us in our work and provide specific direction for the implementation of maritime policy. Let me express my grateful and heartfelt thanks and appreciation to rapporteur Willi Piecyk for having coordinated the keen interest of the various committees and for having produced this impressive report. Let me also thank the different committee rapporteurs and the many other distinguished Members of Parliament who have been particularly involved, throughout the last two years, in building the Parliament’s contribution to this emerging European policy. To these, I apologise for not being able to refer to them by name as I wished. Allow me, if you will, to turn to the report itself. While the report does not include any new proposals, it nevertheless concentrates on certain demands made in Parliament in July 2007 which assisted us in determining the way forward, and will inspire us now for the continued implementation of the maritime policy. 28 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

On some of the sectoral issues, the Commission welcomes the continued emphasis placed by Parliament on the environmental dimension of maritime policy, and on the challenges of climate change in particular, and looks forward to the adoption of a strategy for adaptation to climate change in 2008 which will address these concerns. The Commission also welcomes the recognition by the European Parliament of the importance of maritime transport to the European economy and Parliament’s support for a common maritime transport area, for the development of the motorways of the sea and short sea shipping: all projects which the Commission is pushing forward. In terms of research, the Commission welcomes Parliament’s support for the development of a comprehensive marine research strategy which will be a cornerstone of maritime policy, and should be ready for adoption by mid-2008. The Commission welcomes the positive attitude of the report towards the need to ensure sustainability in the field of fisheries. We have taken a number of steps in this direction since the adoption of the ‘Blue Paper’ such as the adoption of a communication on the ecosystem approach in April 2008, and two proposals on discards, which will be ready by the end of this year. In addition to specific mention of issues including the environment, maritime transport, research and innovation, social aspects, fisheries and energy, the Commission welcomes the particular importance attributed to the regional aspect of maritime policy through the exceptional maritime dimension conferred on the EU by its vast coastline, its islands and its outermost regions, and fully concurs with the view that maritime policy should take into account the various specific features of the Member States and maritime regions, including coastal regions, islands and outermost regions. Honourable Members, we are still in the early stages of the implementation of maritime policy, but with the continued assistance of Parliament, we will strive for increased measures in that implementation. In conclusion, may I once again congratulate the European Parliament and the concerned rapporteurs for their excellent work. We look forward to continuing our close dialogue with you in the months ahead in the interest of implementing the integrated maritime policy for the Union, and also count on your support to engage, in particular, the European maritime regions during Maritime Day 2009.

Sérgio Marques, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development. – (PT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we congratulate the European Commission on its communication on an integrated maritime policy for the European Union and on the proposal for an action plan establishing the first steps aimed at implementing that policy. There have certainly been some backward steps between the Green Paper and the current Blue Book, in particular as regards sea-use planning, coastal protection, the European flag and the European Representative to the International Maritime Organization, but progress has unquestionably been made, specifically on the social dimension, investment, innovation and maritime clusters and maritime transport. The overall balance is positive. Whilst respecting the principle of subsidiarity, we must now put into practice an effective integrated maritime policy that ensures that there is coordination between the various sectoral policies, that produces the expected synergies and real added value. Only in this way can the policy be a significant instrument to face the challenges of sustainable development, competitiveness and economic and social cohesion in Europe. Above all, the Committee on Regional Development hopes that the integrated maritime policy will have a very positive impact on the development and protection of the EU's coastal regions, islands and outermost regions.

Pedro Guerreiro, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Fisheries. – (PT) I shall be very brief, but I would like to highlight the value of incorporating the proposals made by the Committee on Fisheries, which stress that the key objective of the integrated maritime policy for the European Union in the field of fisheries should be to promote the modernisation and sustainable development of the industry, safeguarding its socio-economic viability and the sustainability of resources and guaranteeing food sovereignty and food security, the supply of fish to the public, job preservation and improved living conditions for fishermen. The proposals also stress that creating more and better seafaring jobs, particularly in the fishing industry, also depends on guaranteeing a fair and adequate income for people working in the industry. There is also a need for mechanisms to compensate fishermen who are affected by stock recovery plans, and to boost support 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 29

for scientific fisheries research in the various Member States, particularly under the Seventh Framework Programme, and Community support for adequate means of assistance and rescue for crews.

Georg Jarzembowski, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my group would first of all like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Piecyk. He has been initiating discussions very well for over a year now and has outlined the challenges. Many thanks, Mr Piecyk! We, too, unanimously support the report. However, we regret, Commissioner, that the action plan contains too few practical measures. Mr Piecyk has already pointed out that the entire set of environmental problems remains unresolved. There are no practical measures and it is unclear what contribution the players – ship-owners, for example – are making towards combating climate change and how they can exist in the competition that they have to bear globally. This extends from measures such as the reduction of sulphur and nitrogen oxides at sea to measures in the ports, such as the use of land energy. I am in all honesty a little disappointed. When the Commission says that it will be putting forward proposals on this in the autumn, we shall no longer be able to implement these in this parliamentary term. Perhaps you will be able to add a little more butter to the fish, as the people of Hamburg say, and then have a bit more drive. The second point concerns the issue of marine monitoring. I believe we do not simply need improved cooperation between the national coastguards. We not only need to strengthen FRONTEX – which address illegal immigration – but we also need a European coastguard. This has been one of our concerns for years, that all activities, whether they be fishing activities, customs work or police work, are being centralised in the Member States and a powerful European coastguard is being introduced for this. Mr Commissioner, will the Commission be putting forward a proposal on the coast guard in this parliamentary term or not? One final point, which is new, is the amendments on pirates. We have to provide better protection for our fishing and merchant shipping fleets in international waters and we therefore need European as well as global action. The freedom of the seas should not become the freedom of the pirates.

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău, on behalf of the PSE group. – (RO) I congratulate our colleague Mr. Piecyk, whom I appreciate very much and I am glad that we are discussing his report today, when the Tripartite Declaration establishing the European Maritime Day to be celebrated every year on May 20th is signed. An integrated maritime policy of the Union should ensure synergy between sectors with special economic importance such as: the shipbuilding industry, maritime and fluvial transport, harbour activity, fishing activity, energy, tourism, environmental protection and maritime heritage protection. As of 1 January 2007, the Union borders the Black Sea and the Union should promote its common maritime policy in this region as well. There are coordinators for the TEN-T projects for inland water transport and for transport on maritime corridors. The expansion of the TEN-T network refers to maritime corridors. Unfortunately, the demands for projects that the Commission has launched for the European maritime corridors do not refer to the Black Sea region as well. I request the Commission to draw up studies and projects for the Black Sea region, which has to become a strategic region of the TEN network. I also request the Commission to draft a plan of concrete actions for the protection of delta and estuary areas and here I particularly refer to the Danube Delta.

Paweł Bartłomiej Piskorski, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, I would also like to congratulate Mr Piecyk on an excellent report. It is important that we are having a discussion at this symbolic moment, but my desire is above all to draw attention to the practical aspects of this report. Really it is a major anachronism that, among other European policies that we are implementing within our Community, maritime affairs have so far been set to one side and are not covered by a Community-wide policy. What I wish to point out is that this is not an individual sphere; this is a sphere with very extensive dimensions, as indicated in this report. It has an economic dimension; there are large numbers of people who make their living from the sea and who work there. It has a very strong social dimension, which we must bear in mind when we talk of restructuring this industry, and when we talk of what to do with those people who make their living at sea and from the sea. Our discussion has a very important environmental dimension, which is particularly emphasised in this report, and I would like to thank the rapporteur for that too. There is also a very important regional dimension; we must not forget that regions that take their living from the sea, and that lie next to the sea, constitute a very substantial part of our Community. 30 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

I would also like to stress a point that has arisen in this discussion, which is that we always treat our work and our discussion as a sort of contents list and prompt for the Commission. We outline certain answers, we pose questions and we sketch out our doubts, whereas our expectations in relation to the Commission are in fact very great and we expect answers to come as quickly as possible, with specific solutions. I would also like to point out that for very many countries this is a priority matter, with as much importance as other European policies, such as agricultural policy.

Margrete Auken, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DA) Madam President, attempts to get the shipping industry away from the old-fashioned notion that the sea wipes away all tracks have so far failed. No, the sea remembers as well as the soil and the air, as well as plants and animals and the human body, and the shipping industry’s contribution to pollution remains enormous. Imagine if we could get the major shipping nations to make the IMO an active player in the battle to save the global environment instead of using the IMO to put the brakes on good initiatives, as is currently the case. This report by Mr Piecyk is an excellent addition to our previous achievements in Parliament, but I hope that we can strengthen it further by gaining support for our proposed amendment, so that shipping will undoubtedly be included in the CO2 quota trading scheme. We already have aviation included. The only logical and defensible approach is for shipping to also contribute. Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, support Amendment 1 to have the Maritime Emission Trading Scheme included in the report.

Seán Ó Neachtain, on behalf of the UEN Group. – Mr President, I would first like to congratulate Willi Piecyk on his report. I come from an island and I understand very well the importance of maritime research and progress. I think today's report gives us a great advantage in achieving this. We are not very satisfied with the Common Maritime Policy in Ireland but there is more than that at stake. Some time ago, we visited my area in the company of the Fisheries Committee and we saw the wonderful work that is being done by the Maritime Institute in Oranmore in county Galway. Together with other institutes like the Maritime Institute we will be able to promote the necessary research throughout Europe so that the blue revolution we speak so much about can come to fruition and support our plan.

Pedro Guerreiro, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) I shall speak only briefly to point out that any initiative on maritime policy must respect Member States’ sovereignty as regards their territorial waters and exclusive economic zones. I would point out that Article 5 of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic lays down that the State may not alienate any part of the Portuguese territory or of the sovereign rights it exercises over it – and that includes rights to adjacent sea beds. Furthermore, it is essential to improve the working conditions of seafarers, guaranteeing jobs, respect for the principle of equal pay for equal work, a reduction in working time and no application of the multi-skilling requirement, and resisting any renewed attempt to liberalise port services at EU level, in particular as regards intra-Community shipping; the ‘sound financial basis’ for the maritime policy should not be built at the expense of the European Fisheries Fund and the , but should be based on the principle that new priorities will require new financial resources.

Fernand Le Rachinel (NI). – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, congratulations are due to Mr Piecyk for his excellent report on the Integrated Maritime Policy, and also to my colleague Mr Jarzembowski for his pertinent remarks. Madam President, this report has the great merit of incorporating the various different aspects of this policy: environmental, economic, social and safety aspects. In particular, I am referring to the problems associated with illegal immigration, terrorism and smuggling, which occur along the full 320 000 kilometres of European coastline. The Member States with coastline need to step up the surveillance and control of their seas. Cooperation between them and the countries from which these illegal activities originate absolutely must be implemented as quickly as possible. It is also true that scientific discoveries, the considerable progress of technology, globalisation, climate change and maritime pollution are changing considerably Europe’s relationship with the seas and oceans, with all the problems and challenges this brings. However, I am disappointed that the text proposed to us does not cover policy on ports and fisheries in more detail. These are two particularly sensitive dossiers, as we know. In France, professional fishermen are 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 31

blockading the Atlantic, Channel and Mediterranean ports in reaction of course to the sudden rise in diesel prices and the quotas policy imposed by Brussels. The sector is in crisis structurally as much as economically. Fishing bosses no longer want to invest in their boats so the fleet is ageing. The average age of French fishing vessels is 25 years. Fewer and fewer people are going into a career in fishing because of the constraints on the profession. Madam President, an integrated maritime policy has to take these sectoral considerations and problems into account and quickly reverse the trend that is leading to the slow and painful death of the fishing sector.

Luís Queiró (PPE-DE). – (PT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Piecyk, anyone passing in front of the at the moment will see a huge hoarding bearing the phrase ‘An Ocean of Opportunity’, in reference to the European Maritime Day (which is today) and to European maritime policy. The European Commission is quite right and I too believe that the investment we are resolved to make in the sea could provide an excellent opportunity to use that vast resource in a responsible and competitive manner. Unfortunately the world is awash with lost opportunities, with shipwrecked good ideas. That must not be the fate of the European maritime policy. We cannot, or rather, we must not lack the will or the capacity to carry the policy through, as Mr Jarzembowski quite rightly pointed out. The energy of our belief in the potential of this initiative must not be expended on halfway measures or the mere mouthing of generous-sounding ideas which are basically much less ambitious than we would like.

Our road to success will entail: decisive investment in blue technologies; promoting a network of maritime clusters to develop best practices and the most advanced technologies; making the most of the sea in the fight against climate change and in using it as a source of renewable energy; promoting maritime transport and coastal tourism; acknowledging the maritime regions, in particular the outermost regions and their importance in security and protection against illegal immigration, trafficking, smuggling and terrorist threats. We must also, of course, ensure that we have a strategic and integrated vision and sustainable financing for these policies. I therefore now appeal directly to the Commission and to my fellow Members to say that the ambition shown cannot be less than the ambition to build another European centre of interest based on an integrated maritime policy. This water, Commissioner, will not flow under this bridge again. I just wonder whether the European Commission and this Parliament will be able to rise to their own challenge.

Robert Navarro (PSE). – (FR) Madam President, one of the aims of the first European Maritime Day we are celebrating today is to buff up the image of the maritime occupations by restoring their future prospects. In addition to the improvement of working and employment conditions for these occupations and the redefinition of career plans, a number of structural conditions also need to be met. Today, throughout France, desperate fishermen are blockading ports because they no longer believe they have a future. In addition to the fishing restrictions aimed at protecting fish stocks – the principle of which I am not querying, though I do wonder about its fairness – rising fuel prices are now also threatening them with bankruptcy. This is already a problem in France but it is likely to spread to other parts of Europe in the near future too. The European Union can and must act in this area by supporting restructuring and encouraging the introduction of cleaner-burning, more fuel-efficient vessels. As a matter of urgency, it must also help companies affected by this economic crisis to stay afloat. I highlight this last point because we cannot let the first European Maritime Day coincide in the minds of citizens with the death of an entire trade.

Anne E. Jensen (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, Mr Piecyk’s report points out that there must be more concrete action on the table when we are talking about maritime policy, and I strongly agree. Nowhere is such an active maritime policy more necessary than in the Baltic. It is the EU’s most polluted maritime area with extensive pollution from the land, as well as from ships. Added to this there is the dumped ammunition from past wars. There must be a cleaner environment in the Baltic, and we would also like to see strong economic development in the area, together with a move towards coastal shipping traffic relieving road traffic. A solution must then be found to limit the emissions of ships that does not hinder the development of coastal 32 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

shipping. I believe that the way forward lies in methodological freedom to achieve the political goals for emissions combined with financial instruments. I hope that in its Baltic strategy the Commission will strengthen work to improve the environment and learn from the pilot projects that Parliament included in this year’s budget.

Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, I represent Scotland, one of Europe’s primary maritime nations. The EU has some 68 000 km of coastline; Scotland has some 11 000 km of that. So, in terms of maritime interests, Scotland is at the heart of Europe. We have much to gain and much to contribute to a maritime strategy and policy. We have waters rich in minerals, energy and biological resources and we are ideally located as a maritime hub for Europe and the wider world. Maritime nations will have their own priorities in terms of strategy and policy for the resource which is their sea. Any EU policy should assist maritime nations in achieving their objectives such as by funding research, by facilitating development of new routes for transporting goods and passengers, supporting energy interconnectors, improving safety on vessels and energy efficiency. Can I quote from Article 34 of the Piecyk report, which says ‘the integrated maritime policy for the European Union should be developed in such a way as to avoid failings in the CFP such as over-centralisation’? In other words: add value and not take over as an excuse of competence.

Athanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Madam President, the Commission communication on maritime policy for the European Union aims to ensure the profitability of ship-owners and of the monopoly groups active in the sector.

What can be said about the proposals for an integrated maritime policy? Firstly, they promote new privileges, and changes in the Community and commercial legislation international framework. Apart from anything else, they divisively create social problems for workers in the shipping industry and residents of island regions. Secondly, maritime policy is being lumped together with transport and related sectors. Thirdly, sweeping changes are being introduced in training and labour relations in order to replace the workforce with cheaper labour. The workload is being intensified as are the risks to human life and the environment. Fourthly, ports are being sold off to business group monopolies. Fifthly, the mechanisms of repression are being strengthened under the pretext of combating terrorism. Sixthly, flags of convenience are symbols of competitiveness and the EU’s anti-labour maritime policy. It is not for nothing that 68% of the capacity of the Greek-owned fleet and 85% of Germany’s shipping capacity are under foreign flags, although they are actually based in EU countries.

Ashley Mote (NI). – Madam President, my constituency of South-East England includes over half the coastline of the English Channel, a name that that stretch of water has held for centuries. Yet the latest maps on the Arc Manche region change the name of the English Channel to the ‘Greater North Sea’ and call the Bristol Channel the ‘Celtic Sea’. On whose authority have nautical miles suddenly become kilometres on those maps? Now, you may think that these things are little things, but not where I come from. The Commission has failed completely to understand the impact of such gratuitous and absurd nonsense on an island nation, and they are hurrying the day when the UK walks away from the EU and takes its GBP 1.5 million-an-hour club subscription with it.

Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE). – Mr President, we now have Maritime Day, we have an integrated maritime policy, we have DG MARE. We have certainly come a long way and I think we owe the congratulations of this House to the Commissioner, but also to Willi Piecyk, for the hard work and efforts that they have all contributed towards achieving this objective. Europe’s maritime interests affect the lives and occupations of millions of our citizens. 90% of our external trade and 40% of our internal trade passes through our European ports. Globalisation means that this is bound to grow. If you take into account all of our coastal and outermost regions, we have got over 320 000 km 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 33

of coastline, home to a third of our EU total population. Marine-based industries and services and the other activities of these coastal regions account for 40% of our GDP. But we rely on our maritime resources for more than trade: our seas are a source of food, energy, minerals and recreation. The sea is also an important climate regulator and we have already seen the results of climate change on fish stocks. At a time of growing demand for healthy marine protein, fish stocks continue to decline. We now have to rely on imports from outside the EU for more than 50% of the fish we consume. Critics always try to blame the fishermen for over-exploitation of our marine resources, but global warming, environmental pollution and many other factors have also played a part. If we are to realise the full potential of Europe’s maritime interests and to realise the vision of clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas, then we have to implement a management plan that aims for sustainability in every area, and the way to do that is devolve more management responsibility to our regional advisory councils.

Emanuel Jardim Fernandes (PSE). – (PT) First I should like to congratulate the Commissioner and the Commission for the proposal presented and the methodology adopted and to congratulate Mr Piecyk on his splendid work and openness in the preparation of this excellent report. As a native of an old maritime nation, , and of an insular and outermost region, Madeira, I strongly support this report because it guarantees, among other fundamental aspects, appropriate recognition for the outermost regions in the effective implementation of maritime policy due to their position and their extensive experience, including in the areas of innovation, research, the environment, etc.

Secondly, in the interests of improved management and sustainable exploitation of marine resources and appropriate combating of climate change, enhancement of coastal areas, support for environmentally friendly forms of maritime transport and an effective port policy, support for marine research, promotion of social rights in line with previously agreed international requirements, lifelong learning and support for tourism, which is one of the fundamental activities in this maritime policy.

Bogusław Liberadzki (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, I would like to acknowledge the work of Mr Piecyk. Mr Piecyk, we have come to expect very good reports from you, and this one is no exception. Many thanks! My constituency is Szczecin, in Western Pomerania. We have a port, a shipyard, shipowners, fishermen and a maritime administration. First of all, I welcome the declaration establishing a European Maritime Day. Secondly, as a result of this report, the shipyard workers of Szczecin and Gdynia, and also of and other countries, will be pinning great hopes on the new maritime policy. The shipyard industry is a global industry. Our shipyards must function under conditions comparable to those throughout the world, where our competitors are working. What we need, then – and here I am addressing you, Commissioner – is a prudent policy and sagacious concern for European shipyards.

Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE). – (ES) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I, as a European citizen of Galicia, a maritime region par excellence, am very proud of the excellent work done by the rapporteur, my friend Willi Piecyk, and I thank him along with the other political groups for supporting my amendments on the upsurge of the phenomenon of maritime piracy, which is sadly once again in the news following the two recent hijackings. It is right that our concern should be set out in the resolution, because we are facing a serious international security problem that needs to be dealt with. Over the last 10 years 3 200 sailors have been kidnapped, 500 have been injured and 160 killed in this type of attack. We are asking for something very simple: a mechanism that will enable a warship from any Community country in international waters to provide assistance to Community vessels, whether fishing or merchant vessels. We are also asking for Europe to support the initiative in the aimed at expanding maritime law. Ladies and gentlemen, Happy European Maritime Day! 34 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

Jamila Madeira (PSE). – (PT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, following the 2006 Green Paper, the action plan now under consideration in Mr Piecyk’s excellent report has seen the addition of a series of measures to be taken in the context of the European Integrated Maritime Policy. We must therefore work on an overall vision not only as regards the seas as such, but also as regards the strong relationship with the coastal areas and all things connected therewith: employment, environmental issues, regional development, economic development, investing in marine research and excellence, that is, in a whole series of sectoral policies that, if we tackle them together now, will make it possible to achieve greater cohesion and success in policies put into practice and therefore to attain greater social, economic and environmental sustainability, which is absolutely crucial. For that very reason this report stresses the need for research and innovation to play a central role in boosting regional development potential to support all those activities concerned and affected, either directly or indirectly, by maritime policy. The alternatives for mobility on the seas and the challenge of wave power are some of the promises already being developed and they will certainly bring great expectations as regards future economic solutions and naturally are sustainable and deserve to be supported.

Paulo Casaca (PSE). – (PT) Madam President, I should like to add my congratulations to those of my fellow Members who have already quite rightly congratulated our rapporteur, Mr Piecyk, and who have praised the work already done by the European Commission.

It is already four years since the present Commission made what was perhaps one of the principal political promises it has made; it is appropriate to point out that very significant steps are about to be taken and the Commission is therefore to be congratulated. I should, however, like to stress the point on the ecosystem approach to maritime policy. Such an approach seems to me to be vital and, since I noted that the most recent Commission communication was rather reticent about full implementation in view of the problems that presents for various European seas, I should like to point out that we need to look at the outermost regions in view of their own specific characteristics. There are no problems with a fully integrated approach there and I would challenge the Commission to do that as soon as possible.

Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Maritime transport and ports and shipyards are rather forgotten sectors, although they have considerable growth potential. A suitable conception is required for the development of competitive and safe maritime transport, ports and related sectors that would guarantee a high level of maritime safety. Haulage by sea is a far more energy-efficient means of transport than road haulage. Let us therefore give shipyards a chance to develop, including those in Gdynia, Gdańsk and Szczecin. Let us remember that 90% of the EU’s external trade and almost 40% of its internal trade passes through ports. Europe has been linked to the sea since the dawn of its existence. It had to be that way, since our coastline is 70 000 kilometres long, or three times the length of Africa’s coastline. For years the sea provided for our forefathers and was a source of considerable income. The situation remains the same today. Only an integrated and coordinated approach and appropriate action will enable us to benefit from the potential that our seas have to offer.

Ioan Mircea Paşcu (PSE). – Madam President, in my intervention I would like to emphasise two aspects which I consider very important. The first is the River Danube, which, through its connection to both ends of the continent, links the North Sea with the Black Sea. Its potential is far from being exploited partly because the situation in the former Yugoslavia – situated in a central position of the river – has been blocking any initiative. But with the prospect of a final solution so close it will be difficult to justify the lack of a comprehensive initiative to transform the Danube into the very waterway of the continent, bringing further economic development to its shores all along its course.

The second aspect is mainly political. The maritime approaches to the Union are shared with countries which are not Member States. Therefore the EU has to see to it that its neighbourhood policy and its instruments are so designed as to further the aims of an ambitious target of an integrated comprehensive maritime strategy.

Marusya Ivanova Lyubcheva (PSE). – (BG) Marine space is definitely the area where the most integrated policies are applied in real terms. The seas provide the environment for a multi-directional communication 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 35

among countries, people, activities and policies. In , we say, “The sea brings together all things distant.” I stress that the Black Sea, as an eastern border, and the Black Sea Region should enjoy equal treatment with all other marine policies. Contemporary development poses serious challenges before marine countries, and not only before them. On the one hand, there is the need to protect the environment, water, coastal areas, biodiversity, the employment opportunities of people, and on the other hand, there is the challenge to use marine resources in the interest of the development of society and the people. There are many vital components in this policy. I draw your attention to the need for strict oversight of marine transportation and of all energy projects involving the crossing of seas and to ensure sustainability and renewable marine resources.

Catherine Stihler (PSE). – Madam President, I am pleased today that we can see the importance of a joined-up approach to maritime policy. The links between shipping, climate change and tackling pollution are essential if we are to preserve the common resource of our seas and oceans. However, I hope that next year we can make more of 20 May and I think there is an opportunity next year with the 2009 European elections for every candidate in those elections to use 20 May to highlight the importance of our seas and oceans and coastal communities.

Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, honourable Members, the engaging debate and the range of interesting points you raised clearly demonstrate the commitment of this Parliament to move forward the agenda of the integrated maritime policy for the Union.

I assure you that the Commission fully shares this commitment. Many speakers raised the point that we have not gone far enough in our proposals and that we could and should have been even more ambitious. I take these comments as a sign of your real conviction that this policy is one that will be a success and will make a significant difference to the millions of European Union citizens and stakeholders that are affected by our oceans. Let me reiterate that this is only the beginning of a whole process and that at this stage our primary focus is to ensure that we have the tools in place in the short term to be able to develop and direct the process in the right direction. This is therefore the main thrust of the action plan adopted by the Commission last October. On the issue of financing, I agree with Mr Queiró that financing is a key issue that will have an impact on the success of this policy. Thus far we have mobilised financing from savings made in policy areas such as fisheries. This was not to the detriment of fisheries programmes but due to savings and unused money. The issue of future funding of the integrated maritime policy will be a crucial one in the discussions and in the future financial perspectives. Let me now turn to a few specific points that have been raised and on which I would like to give an immediate comment. I would like, however, to assure you that we will give full consideration to all the points that have been mentioned during the course of this debate. With regard to emissions by ships I would like to recall the very significant agreement that has just been

reached within IMO on SOx and on NOx. I would like now to have more focus on CO2 and we should do so first within the IMO and, if this fails, we would have the obligation to act ourselves. On the point that was raised by Mr Jarzembowski concerning the European coastguard, to whom I paid particular attention, I would like to underline that this is a very sensitive matter. However, I foresee the development of a coordinated mechanism of national coastguards or of surveillance systems. With regard to the fuel price increases, let me reiterate that this is certainly not due to any measures taken by Brussels, but it is an international problem and it is a new reality. We are doing our utmost to find appropriate solutions to help the sectoral structure and to face up to this reality. We have just reached agreement in fact with France in this regard and I am sure that details of this agreement will be made public in the coming days. On the issue of piracy, of course the Commission is deeply concerned that incidents are on the increase. We see a need and an opportunity for mutual assistance and support among the EU membership to face this threat and await further direction from the Council and from the Member States themselves on this. I also agree with those who have made calls for more regional approaches and we will be working in this direction. Our project on surveillance in the western Mediterranean is based on such a regional approach 36 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

and we hope it can serve as an example to be extended to other regions. In fact we will be looking at the maritime policy for the Baltic and Black Seas, which has been referred to by a number of speakers this morning, as we have just started to do with regard to the Mediterranean. I do not have time to outline the actions already taken or envisaged in the short term on fisheries like IEU, the structural fishing practices, the ecosystem approach, discards, port strategy, maritime transport, marine maritime research, the marine environment, energy, governance, surveillance or the social exclusion of seafarers, all of which we are dealing with. However, I can assure you that the Commission’s commitment to push forward this new policy hand in hand with Parliament in particular and with the Member States and stakeholders is guaranteed.

Willi Piecyk, rapporteur. − (DE) Madam President, this is unfortunately the problem in the end. I hope that at least the Commissioner can understand me. I would first like to thank all those who have taken part in the debate. I am convinced that integrated maritime policy, as the Commission has put forward, from shipyards via ships, ports and fisheries research to tourism, can be an enormous opportunity for Europeans if they, too, take advantage of it. Commissioner, you have heard: the Commission has Parliament's full support to proceed a little more boldly, a little more energetically. I know about the difficulties you have with the Council, but this should not prevent you from boldly putting your own ideas into practice and promoting them. You have approached the IMO. It is good, of course, if the IMO has resolved upon something in terms of climate protection and reduction, but you know how laborious it also is for the Member States to sign IMO resolutions. Mr Jarzembowski has mentioned to the coastguard. If we both persuade our government that it should first have a coastguard itself, I hope that we shall achieve this. The Commission incidentally still has one more job to carry out here, namely to produce a modest survey on this. Lastly, we still know far too little about the seas. A great deal of research and funds are therefore required from Europeans in order to learn more about the seas, and if we now bring these into being in connection with the European Maritime Day, we have done something good. As Mrs Stihler has said: next year we hope to be able to record some progress. (Applause)

President. − The debate is closed. We shall now proceed to the vote. Written statements (Article 142)

John Attard-Montalto (PSE), in writing. – (MT) I totally agree with the statement that Europe’s seas should be ‘the cleanest in the world, with… the most profitable economy, the best research and technology, the most modern and cleanest shipping… and the most innovative ideas’. We have to recognise, however, that in order to achieve these aims, the Commission’s Action Plan for Integrated Maritime Policy should be much more ambitious. On the other hand it is clear that the Action Plan contains ‘too few practical measures’, and that we have to admit that European maritime policy is not prepared for the consequences of climate change, particularly the rise in sea levels and the increased risk of flooding of ports and coastal regions. The Members States must do their utmost to ensure that European maritime policy makes an important contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, land-based pollution of the seas constitutes a significant proportion of overall maritime pollution. I conclude that, in order to prepare, the Commission be asked to put forward an action plan to reduce land-based pollution. For their part, the Member States are called on to act promptly to transpose the legislation in this field into national law.

Rumiana Jeleva (PPE-DE) in writing. – We in Europe must do our best to ensure that an effective maritime policy is in place which protects and pays sufficient attention to maritime issues. The report highlights areas of success, but it also points out shortcomings. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 37

In my eyes, key issues to be addressed in order to ensure such an improvement are a more coordinated cooperation and a strengthening of regional authorities and coastal communities. These local actors have to be incorporated into any new strategy since they are the ones who are in charge of the actual implementation of any such strategies. Through the method of increased cooperation between different coastal entities, more must be done to improve environmental protection of local ecosystems. Additionally, in order to avoid environmental harm caused by ship accidents such as the crash of oil tankers in the Black Sea a few months ago, I would like to see clear guidelines on seafaring in European and nearby maritime waters. This means that increased cooperation with seafaring third countries is necessary. If necessary, the European Union should be ready to assist these countries with fulfilling the hopefully soon to be established stricter guidelines. We would all profit from such an approach.

Janusz Lewandowski (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PL) Not all EU Member States have access to the sea, but an appreciation of the significance of exploitation of the sea is universal. The maritime industry, maritime services and activities located in coastal areas are estimated to contribute 40% of the total GDP of the Community of 27. This is the reason why further practical steps to put into effect an integrated EU maritime policy are expected, steps that follow the European Commission’s Green Paper. We are seeing efforts to make better use of the potential of coastal shipping, thus relieving overland routes; sadly, my country’s contribution to this is negligible. It does seem, though, that economic problems are being pushed into the background by environmental and climatic priorities.

This is a trend that is characteristic of all EU policies. The difficulty, however, is to make one chime with another. The rising dispute over protected areas in the Baltic is just one illustration of the tensions between the economic interests of the fishing industry and aspects of protection of natural resources. From the Polish viewpoint – that is, that of a country ‘working its way up’ – finding a balance between economics and the environment is essential. The link between the report under examination and the first European Maritime Day celebration is pleasing. It would, however, be of greater importance to fit out a common maritime policy with financial and legislative tools, to ensure that formal celebrations are not all we end up with.

IN THE CHAIR: MR PÖTTERING President

8. Voting time

President. − The next item is voting time. (For results and other details of the votes: see Minutes)

8.1. Comparability of vocational training qualifications between the Member States (A6-0132/2008, Jan Andersson) (vote)

8.2. Simplifying procedures for listing and publishing information in the veterinary and zootechnical fields (A6-0160/2008, Neil Parish) (vote)

8.3. The return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State (codified version) (A6-0152/2008, Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg) (vote)

8.4. Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (A6-0145/2008, Pia Elda Locatelli) (vote)

8.5. Community Tobacco Fund (A6-0164/2008, Sergio Berlato) (vote) 38 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

8.6. The Evaluation of the PEACE Programme (A6-0133/2008, Bairbre de Brún) (vote)

8.7. Meat and livestock statistics (A6-0130/2008, Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf) (vote)

– Before the vote:

Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf, rapporteur. − (DE) Mr President, it has in fact been fun. In terms of content, it is an important report, but I did not want to comment on it now. We have not had any discussion, so it was agreed that I should comment briefly. This report concerns the codecision-making procedure. We had disputes with the Council on procedure. In the codecision procedure we quite naturally wanted – as you negotiated – controls in the regulatory procedure we wanted Parliament to be able to intervene in the event of a change to the administrative procedures. The Council wanted to refuse us this. We have had a few altercations with the Council but have held sway in the end. If the Treaty, which was once called the Constitution, enters into force, there will have to be a further revision of the comitology procedure. We shall then have to ensure that what the Council has already been practising does not happen again and that we basically do not lose influence here. I say this so that the groups will also occupy themselves with this matter.

8.8. Employment Policy Guidelines for Member States (A6-0172/2008, Anne Van Lancker) (vote)

8.9. 2009 budget: Parliament's estimates (A6-0181/2008, ) (vote)

8.10. Trade in raw materials and commodities (A6-0134/2008, Jens Holm) (vote)

8.11. Outermost regions (A6-0158/2008, Margie Sudre) (vote)

8.12. EU consumer policy strategy 2007-2013 (A6-0155/2008, Lasse Lehtinen) (vote)

– Before the vote on Amendment 3:

Lasse Lehtinen, rapporteur. − Mr President, in Amendment 3 I have been told that there is some confusion over the French text. The words ‘as appropriate’ have not been properly translated into French. I would just like to ask if this could be checked afterwards by experts.

President. − That will be done.

8.13. Progress made in equal opportunities and non-discrimination in the EU (A6-0159/2008, Elizabeth Lynne) (vote)

– Before the vote:

Philip Bushill-Matthews, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, our group had intended to ask for three additional roll calls but, for whatever reason, they got lost in transit. I would like, through you, Mr President – I have checked with the secretariat that it was in order to ask today – to have these three instated. They are on: paragraph 2, Amendment 4D; paragraph 6 of the original text; and finally, after paragraph 36, our Amendment 12. I hope you will appreciate that this is a very sensitive dossier and we would like to be able to place on record not just what we are against, but also what we are in favour of. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 39

(The President established that there were no objections to this amendment) – Before the vote on Amendment 5:

Sophia in ’t Veld (ALDE). – Mr President, we have been speaking about countries which have not adequately implemented or transposed the Anti-Discrimination Directive but there is one country which has not implemented it at all and therefore I would propose the following oral amendment: ‘Calls on the Czech Government to effectively transpose the Employment Directive and for the Czech Parliament to overrule the veto of the Czech President’. (The oral amendment was not accepted) – Before the vote on Amendments 1, 16 and 17:

Richard Howitt (PSE). – Mr President, very briefly, I of course support your discretion in interpreting the Rules, but it seems very strange for the PPE-DE Group to want to introduce roll-call votes at the last moment after the deadline has expired because they say that they want to positively explain their case, when their amendments seek to delete – to delete – paragraphs from this report. I think that they are trying to cover up the cracks in their own group rather than actually say anything positive in combating discrimination.

President. − Mr Howitt, it is probably the case that the vote referred to was filed too late, but I did ask you, and in this respect you were too late in asking to speak. If you had asked straight away, perhaps we would have voted differently.

8.14. An Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union (A6-0163/2008, Willi Piecyk) (vote)

9. Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

- Report: Sergio Berlato (A6-0164/2008)

Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, there are a number of controversies surrounding the production and consumption of tobacco. We must be aware that the fact of tobacco growing in the EU really has no impact on the level of consumption of tobacco products by our citizens. Were we to restrict or cease tobacco production in Europe, this would not result in a fall in the number of cigarettes smoked. Imported tobacco would be used. I fully support the development of a public information programme to publicise the dangers of smoking, and this should be paid for by cigarette manufacturers and tobacco producers.

Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – (CS) I support information campaigns on the harmful effects of tobacco and the European Parliament resolution on a long-term plan to finance these campaigns with EUR 80 million, deducted from the subsidies to European tobacco growers. This will mean that no burden will be placed on the EU budget. Although the level of raw tobacco production in Europe is marginal, barely 4% of world production, we are the world’s leading importer of raw tobacco and for most of our requirements we rely on the supply from third countries where tobacco is produced locally under conditions that are less closely regulated than those applicable to European tobacco. However, I object to subsidising tobacco production in Europe, and not only as a matter of general principle: the public funds allocated for this area could be used elsewhere and in a better way.

Katerina Batzeli (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, we, the PASOK Group in the European Parliament, have voted in favour of Mr Berlato’s report. We believe the public should continue to be informed on matters relating to tobacco and tobacco products. There should be a similar policy with self-financed funds to inform the public on health matters relating to other products such as meat and fats. Furthermore, in regions such as , where tobacco production has been drastically reduced, we cannot see why subsidies should not continue in their present form until 2013. 40 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

- Report: Bairbre de Brún (A6-0133/2008)

James Nicholson (PPE-DE). – Mr President, first of all I have to apologise to the House; as shadow rapporteur, I was unable to be here yesterday evening because my flight was not on time. So I apologise for that. Mr President, much has been written about the Northern Ireland peace process and this is another non-legislative report. The question is, did it do any good? Yes it did. It meant that many small groups in Northern Ireland, especially women’s groups, were able to get off the ground and were able to provide for their areas. Was it fair in distribution? The answer is, no, it was not. At the beginning PEACE I was certainly not fair; PEACE II was better, and I certainly look forward to PEACE III being another improvement. Unionist communities are not getting their fair share. Greater care must be taken to ensure that the cross-border bodies that are in place respect the balance in the region. There is no point in their existence if they do not. A glaring example of this is ICBAN, a cross-border body which in my opinion should not receive any more funding until they rectify the position. I would like to pay tribute, Mr President, to the many people since the beginning of the PEACE programme who have given their time voluntarily to work for the greater good of all, and I trust that Northern Ireland will go forward and prosper. The people deserve no less, and I warn against the sinister forces that are still around in the region.

- Report: Anne Van Lancker (A6-0172/2008)

Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report mainly for two reasons: firstly, because this report quite emphatically demands that the Member States finally implement the Lisbon Strategy and therefore measures on employment policy as well, and secondly, because it demands that good and affordable childcare arrangements finally be set up in the Member States. This is a very important precondition for compatibility between family life and work. This is particularly in the interest of single mothers because employment opportunities are thereby created and poverty can be combated. These are therefore positive strategies that are needed in order to translate the appropriate employment policy measures into reality.

Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, employment is an indicator of how we are progressing. It is, however, difficult not to perceive certain defects in the sphere of social and territorial cohesion. In the EU, considered as a sphere of wellbeing, there are still almost 80 million people, that is 16% of all EU citizens, who are living in or threatened by poverty. Many jobs are of low quality and there is no help to get young people into work or to extend the working life of many experienced employees, or to employ disabled people. We must bear in mind that it is regions that are most backward in development terms that have to contend with the greatest problems. High unemployment, low involvement of older and disabled people in employment, a high proportion of people remaining out of work for longer than 12 months, women finding it harder than men in the job market – these are just some of the problems they have to face. In Poland this situation arises in the ‘Eastern Wall’ regions. The situation in the is worth commending: there they have made the lowering of barriers to employee movements one of the priorities of the forthcoming Presidency.

Frank Vanhecke (NI). – (NL) The report by Mrs Van Lancker actually reads like a type of catalogue of good intentions and wishes. Improved and better-paid access to the labour market for women, disabled persons and immigrants is always said in one breath, even though it concerns three very different groups. An increase by five years in the average retirement age in the EU by 2010, perfect childcare facilities, barely any school leavers without a job, a job for people who have been unemployed for four years, and so on. That is all well and good, but it is not Christmas Day. This is a Parliament; not a Christmas pageant. Mrs Van Lancker should know better. We both live in a country in which, unfortunately, 10 million people in both parts of the country are simply crying out for a fundamentally different approach to the employment issue in the two parts of the country. We no longer require uniformity at European level; on the contrary, we require the possibility for the Member States and regions to take the specific measures that are required at local level both quickly and effectively. Thank you. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 41

- Report: Janusz Lewandowski (A6-0181/2008)

Frank Vanhecke (NI). – (NL) This is an initial report on Parliament’s estimates of revenue and expenditure and, in actual fact, is teeming with the complacency of this institution, whereas the opposite should be the case in this initial report. Everybody knows that money is thrown around in this institution. The two places of work cost a tremendous amount of money, without actually offering true added value. Each year always heralds enormous increases in the operating costs of this institution, this time camouflaged as it were as a necessary consequence of the , which to my knowledge has not even been adopted yet. Then, of course, there is the new Statute for Members, a concoction by Eurofanatics, intended to cut even more firmly through the bond between Members of Parliament and the people who they represent, which will of course all cost a great deal, will it not? It is for all of these reasons, and many more, that I have voted against this report with conviction.

- Report: Margie Sudre (A6-0158/2008)

Madeleine Jouye de Grandmaison, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Mr President, regarding the report by Mrs Sudre, with my Group’s support I tabled a number of amendments as part of a compromise. These amendments have been partially fulfilled. I would like to thank the Committee. The amendments concerned recognition of the added value of the outermost regions in the fields of space, renewable energies, energy self-sufficiency and biodiversity, the importance of public service for the development of the ORs, acknowledgement of the lack of integration of the ORs into the European Research Area, recognition of the benefit of the NET-BIOME programme, and the ORs’ ability to make a significant contribution to established international priorities. On the other hand, I am disappointed that this report has not fully integrated the social and cultural chapter for comprehensive development and that support and recognition of the regional languages of the ORs, funding of research into slavery and colonialism, and the defence of the rights of the native peoples of Guyana were not kept. I am also disappointed that the report makes no significant commitment to strengthen research capability so that it matches potential. I am disappointed that my proposal for regulation of postal and telecommunications pricing between the national territories and the ORs was not upheld. As part of my assessment, I am disappointed that my request for a social and environmental impact study of the CMO in sugar and bananas was rejected. However, I voted in favour of this report, which certainly provides valuable information and results for the ORs.

- Report: Lasse Lehtinen (A6-0155/2008)

Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – (CS) I would like to follow up on the politically charged debate we had yesterday. I did not support the Socialists’ proposal relating to collective redress because the responsible thing, in my opinion, is to wait for the results of the impact studies in order to assess the effectiveness of collective redress, in particular as regards the costs incurred by consumers. Therefore, today I want to protest against improper comments during our debate yesterday by my fellow Member Mrs Gebhardt, who gives voters the impression that only the Socialists protect consumer interests, unlike the democrats who protect the interests of industry. Such manipulative political rhetoric and demagogy bear no relation to reality and I object to them.

- Report: Elizabeth Lynne (A6-0159/2008)

Frank Vanhecke (NI). – (NL) I have voted with great conviction against the Lynne report because, in my opinion, it goes much further than countless reports approved by this Parliament in the past that, in themselves, are highly questionable. Parliament is now once again throwing its doors wide open to a type of all-encompassing European anti-discrimination policy, which leaves barely a single social domain untouched. I have said it before in this 42 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

institution and I shall say it again: the fight against discrimination, if it is necessary, is a fight that falls within the exclusive competence of the Member States, and Europe must not assume the role of police officer or thought police in this regard. Indeed, anyone who reads the Lynne report closely will come to the conclusion that it has less to do with the actual fight against discrimination than with undermining freedom of expression even further and, in particular, making political correctness into a legal affair. I cannot agree with this and have therefore voted against this report with conviction.

Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, we are all in agreement that every conceivable measure has to be taken against discrimination. Therefore, we have also declared our faith in four directives. A fifth is being prepared. There is support for this one, too. I have, however, voted against this report because it chooses a wrong strategy, because it does not advocate the implementation of existing laws, but instead immediately demands another new directive, which includes new authorities, new bureaucracies and new test procedures. This means barriers are proffered instead of solutions. All in all, this does not lead to discrimination being abolished. My entire delegation is pursuing a different path. My delegation would like the Member States to be asked ultimately to implement everything that already exists in current law and not, as the report suggests, taking the second step before the first.

Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, respect for human rights is a fundamental task of the European Community. Sadly, the European Union is not managing this in the best way. The situation in this sphere will not alter after just two hours of debate. Nor do the actions taken by the European Commission and other agencies in authority offer much hope for improvement. Europe and the rest of the world are still wrestling with racial, sexual, cultural and national discrimination. Trafficking in people, including children, for money, for pleasure, for organs, is increasing with each year that passes. The number of acts of violence is rising, and victims are increasingly often deciding to remain silent, as they have no faith in help from the State. I get the impression that we in the European Parliament are working mainly for the benefit of businesses, corporations and regions, and too little for ordinary people, for whom the most important considerations are their standard of living and equality of rights. Our actions do not bring the desired effects; they merely soothe the conscience by making us feel that we are doing something. It is high time for some radical changes. That is why I am voting against the report.

- Report: Willi Piecyk (A6-0163/2008)

Erik Meijer, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – Mr President, within the GUE/NGL Group there exists great tolerance for minority positions. There are cases where those minorities like to show to the plenary of this Parliament that their viewpoint differs from the large majority inside our group. Such was recently the case in the voting on my report concerning the relationship between Macedonia and the European Union. We gave the limited speaking time for our group to one of our Greek Members, who declared that the European Union cannot admit any new member, as it would be better to abolish the Union itself. Possibly this remark created the misunderstanding that my group did not follow my proposals to speed up the negotiations with this candidate Member State. However, this position was only the viewpoint of the Communist Party of Greece, not of our group as a whole, which supported my proposals, as did the vast majority of this Parliament. In the last debate this morning we again had such a situation. On the Piecyk report on an integrated maritime policy, the two speakers from our group were the Greek Member Pafilis and the Portuguese Member Guerreiro. Getting the opportunity to speak on this issue was very important for the parties they represent here. In their national debate, those two parties prefer to use the Piecyk report as a symbol for everything that is wrong about the working conditions of seamen and port workers and also for everything that can be linked with NATO intentions for the military use of the sea. The majority of our group, including the German and Netherlands delegations, take the view that the Piecyk report has nothing to do with those issues. We twice supported the defeat of the Ports Directive but we are not against maritime policy in general. We support Mr Piecyk’s proposals, which are focused on useful elements like the environment, the protection of coastal regions, education and the quality of labour. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 43

Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report for a number of reasons. Firstly, one of the main challenges with which Europe has to contend is climate change. This also has a direct bearing on maritime areas, especially coastal regions threatened by rising water levels. Secondly, significant exploitation of maritime resources, especially through excessive fishing, as well as climate change, currently constitutes a serious threat to the marine environment. Relations between oceans and the climate are treated as a major part of EU climate policy. Thirdly, almost 80% of pollution of the marine environment originates from the land. Environmental threats such as shipwrecks on the sea bed and the remains of military ammunition and chemical weaponry are also of considerable significance. Fourthly, intensive fishing has rocked the equilibrium of the ecosystem and is destabilising biodiversity too. Fifthly, oceans and seas play an important role in the European strategy to ensure energy security. On the one hand, they are a source of oil and gas, as well as a source of renewable energy. On the other, they constitute a means and a route for the transportation of energy and thus increase energy security. We therefore need to create a sustainable policy for development of the seas and oceans. Written explanation of vote

− Report: Jan Andersson (A6-0132/2008)

Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by my Swedish fellow Member Jan Andersson, under the simplified procedure, which confirms the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council repealing Council Decision 85/368/EEC on the comparability of vocational training qualifications between the Member States of the European Community, which called for the Member States and the Commission to cooperate in drawing up Community job descriptions in specified occupations, and then match vocational training qualifications recognised in the Member States with the agreed job descriptions. Because this decision was difficult to apply, it was sensible to repeal it. The European Qualifications Framework (EQF) should address the limitations of the decision to be repealed, by focusing on improving the transparency of qualifications and by introducing a decentralised approach for cooperation which reflects the increasing complexity of qualifications in Europe. Nevertheless, this unfortunate affair testifies to the need for clarification and simplification of Community law so that citizens can understand and use it in their everyday lives.

Adam Bielan (UEN), in writing. − (PL) A rise in employment in the European Union is directly related to occupational training and to mutual recognition of qualifications. I supported Mr Andersson’s report because I feel that EU Member States should create a common model for verification of occupational qualifications regardless of the country in which they were acquired. This will encourage employees to keep improving their skills, and students to study, gain new experience and improve their knowledge of foreign languages in various parts of Europe. As a representative of Małopolska, the third largest region in Poland in terms of student numbers, I would also like to draw attention to the particular significance of diploma recognition for young people. All academic exchanges and the potential to compare qualifications are of exceptional importance for young people wishing to acquire experience abroad.

Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PL) One of the four principles on which the European Union’s common market is based relates to the free movement of people. The free movement of people provides EU citizens with the potential to take up employment in another Member State. Different education systems and regulations on occupational qualifications, however, often make it difficult to accept employment in occupations in which we hold qualifications. This is why it is so important to be able to compare occupational qualifications between different Member States. In the view of the European Commission and also of the rapporteur, Decision No 85/368/EEC, which governs this matter, has not adequately facilitated the comparability of occupational qualifications to the benefit of workers seeking employment in another Member State. This is what lies behind the decision to replace it with a newer and more effective instrument, the European Qualifications Framework, which increases transparency, supports the transfer of qualifications and makes it easier to assess the results of study. I am pleased that this step has drawn broad support from various areas: social partners, industry and sector organisations, educational institutions and NGOs. This guarantees broad acceptance of the changes being made. 44 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

I am therefore in favour of rescinding the Decision, and I feel that the EQF, as a tool enabling qualifications to be compared, will provide a chance for people to move more easily and will enable the aims that were not realised through Decision No 85/368/EEC to be attained, thus ensuring greater worker mobility in the European labour market.

Katalin Lévai (PSE), in writing. − (HU) I voted in favour of Mr Andersson’s report because I believe it is important to overturn all possible barriers to the harmonisation of professional and vocational qualifications. It is important to repeal Council Decision 85/368/EEC, since implementation of this decision failed to bring about comparability of professional and vocational qualifications. The decision is now being replaced by other, newer and more effective European-level instruments such as the European Qualifications Framework (EQF). As an instrument for the promotion of lifelong learning, the EQF encompasses qualifications of all levels, from those achieved through compulsory education or adult education to those awarded in higher education and in professional or vocational education and training. It is therefore important for Member States to give the maximum possible weight to education, as this is the basis for employment. Education, alongside the acquisition of general learning and cultural knowledge, plays a vital role in developing a tolerant European society. As well as learning to use energy efficiently and protect the environment, the next generation must also learn to accept and respect differences. Education is the key to many other things too: it provides an opportunity for minorities, for example for Roma people, to preserve their culture and ensure their integration. In minority communities nowadays there are increasing numbers of well-educated young people who are in a position to defend their own interests in the face of local authorities and governments.

In order for this to become the norm, we need to develop language teaching, devote more attention to minority cultures in schools, and minorities themselves need to take a more active role in teaching.

Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) In practice we have not always managed to smooth out all the difficulties regarding the mutual recognition of vocational training qualifications and maintain the quality of work here on the one hand, without creating unnecessary hurdles on the other hand. In this regard it is alarming that the Services Directive granted foreign service providers a certain freedom to do whatever they want in the absence of the possibilities of effective control and unexplained sanctions, whereas domestic service providers still have to comply rigorously with the law and standards. In a few years’ time our domestic enterprises will be demanding a re-evaluation of the regulations that apply to foreign enterprises so that they do not go under in the face of merciless competition. Undercutting competition is therefore still being encouraged in the case of wages, working conditions and social security. Nor should the EU be encouraging this development with the ‘blue card’. We have enough skilled workers if only we are prepared to pay them a decent wage.

− Report: Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (A6-0152/2008)

Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by my Polish fellow Member Mrs Geringer de Oedenberg approving, in its first reading under the codecision procedure, the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council to codify Council Directive 93/7/EEC of 15 March 1993 on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State as amended by Directive 96/100/EC (OJ L of 1 March 1997) and Directive 2001/38/EC (OJ L of 10 July 2001). I am disappointed that the codification process is taking such a long time; it should be remembered that it was on 1 April 1987 that the Commission decided to instruct its services to proceed with the codification of all legislation at the latest after its 10th modification, emphasising that this was a minor matter and that its services should strive to codify the texts they were responsible for within an even shorter interval. The President-in-Office of the European Council (in Edinburgh in December 1992) confirmed these imperatives. Finally, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission agreed in an interinstitutional agreement on 20 December 1994 that an accelerated procedure could be used.

Nicodim Bulzesc (PPE-DE), in writing. − (RO) I voted for the Geringer report because I agree that the cultural objects that were removed from the territory of a Member State illegally should be returned to the lawful owner. This report supports the idea of issuing a European Directive for establishing administrative cooperation between Member States on the return of cultural objects removed unlawfully. The Directive will stipulate 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 45

the establishment of a central authority in each Member State, which would exclusively deal with this issue and cooperate with the similar authorities established in the other Member States and Interpol. At the same time, such a directive could simplify the administrative procedure existent at present in the European Union and, personally, I am looking forward to seeing this draft law implemented.

Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I endorse the codification of legislation relating to cultural objects unlawfully removed from Member States. The existing legislation has been modified a number of times and it is important that we have a clear legal framework within which Member States can secure the return of stolen cultural property. I also believe that cultural objects should be returned to local communities within Member States when there is clear local support for such an initiative. Within this context I fully support, for example, the return of the Lewis chessmen to a location in the Western Isles of Scotland and, likewise, the St Ninian’s Isle treasure to Shetland.

Luca Romagnoli (NI), in writing. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am voting in favour of the report by Mrs Geringer de Oedenberg on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State. I consider it fundamental that Member States should be able to work together to settle disputes between national governments and to recognise the importance of the protection of cultural assets at a European level. Cultural assets and works of art represent the heritage of the citizens of Member States, who have every right to be able to visit and admire them. There are in fact cases of scandal and disputes concerning stolen works of art that go back decades. I consider Community intervention to resolve these situations absolutely necessary.

Toomas Savi (ALDE), in writing. − Although having voted in favour of the report, I must draw attention to the fact that Article 13 of the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State states that this directive shall apply starting from 1 January 1993. Let me remind you that after the illegal annexation of the Republic of Estonia by the Soviet Union in 1940 numerous artefacts were moved from Estonia to different destinations in the Soviet Union that have not been returned, among those objects the Presidential collar. I hope that the Commission has not forgotten about that and will soon produce a proposal for a directive dealing with unlawful removals prior to 1993.

− Report: Pia Elda Locatelli (A6-0145/2008)

Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by my Italian fellow Member Mrs Locatelli, written under the consultation procedure on the proposal for a Council regulation setting up the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking. Putting Europe at the forefront of fuel cell and hydrogen technologies globally is an excellent policy. Fuel cells are discreet, efficient energy converters that considerably reduce the production of greenhouse gases. They provide great flexibility since they can consume hydrogen and other fuels such as natural gas, ethanol and methanol. It became essential to set up a Community instrument with this Joint Technology Initiative (JTI) to create partnerships between the public and private sectors in the research field under the Seventh Framework Programme for research and technological development (FP7). The JTIs, which mainly result from work by the European Technology Platforms (ETPs) reflect the EU’s firm commitment to coordinate research in order to strengthen the European Research Area and achieve European objectives for competitiveness. I support the idea of giving more assistance to SMEs.

Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) I agree with the rapporteur that we should apply the Cooperation Specific Programme which identifies fuel cells and hydrogen as one of the six areas where a JTI could have particular relevance. This proposal setting up the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking is the fruit of work carried out within the European Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology Platform and aims to contribute to the implementation of the Environmental Technologies Action Plan. 46 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

Fuel cells are very quiet, highly efficient energy converters capable of delivering substantial cumulative greenhouse gas and pollutant reductions, since they can be operated on hydrogen and other fuels, such as natural gas, ethanol and methanol. The introduction of hydrogen as a flexible energy carrier can contribute positively to energy security and stabilise energy prices as it can be produced from any primary energy source, and as such can introduce diversity into the transport mix, which is currently dependent on oil. Although substantial EU public funding has been channelled towards research into fuel cells and hydrogen, those technologies are unlikely to be on the market as soon as we would hope.

Teresa Riera Madurell (PSE), in writing. − (ES) A vote in the committee on Industry, Research and Energy prevented me from participating in this debate, therefore I would like to justify my vote in favour. This JTI has been welcomed by Parliament: in that it has a great deal to do with the EU’s priorities: energy and the fight against climate change; in that the experience accumulated in processing the four previous JTIs has been very helpful in shaping this regulation: the Commission was already aware of our concerns regarding these new instruments - in terms of funding, rules for participating, transparency, opening up, conditions for continuity, etc.; for the good work that the rapporteur has done. The amendments proposed: placing the EU at the forefront of these technologies, guaranteeing priority support for long-term research, supporting the rules for use and dissemination being adapted to those for participation in FP7, strengthening the Scientific Committee with the function of setting the scientific priorities and preventing the regulation from requiring the consortium coordinator to come from an industrial group, are issues that strengthen the Commission’s proposal. JTIs are good instruments for improving our R&D capacity, provided that they are implemented in accordance with the objectives for which they were created. It is our duty to ensure that this happens.

− Report: Sergio Berlato (A6-0164/2008)

Alessandro Battilocchio (PSE), in writing. – (IT) I welcome the Berlato report on the possibility of extending the financing of the Community Tobacco Fund until 2012. The EU feels the need to protect this important sector because the complete withdrawal of subsidies would cause enormous damage to production, with negative repercussions for employment in the regions involved. In some areas, tobacco can represent 35% of agricultural exports and a potential fall in production would do serious economic and social harm, particularly if the local economy is already in difficulty. It is important to underline the fact that the financing earmarked for the Community Tobacco Fund will be used to cover all initiatives and education and awareness-raising campaigns on the damage caused by smoking. Therefore, I hope that the proposal to extend the anti-smoking communication fund is supported by my colleagues, thereby also protecting the interests of the consumer.

Bernadette Bourzai (PSE), in writing. – (FR) The Community Tobacco Fund financed by the transfer of a certain amount of tobacco aid for the years 2006 and 2007 promotes initiatives to raise public awareness of the harmful effects of smoking. The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has proposed extending the funding until the end of the financial perspective and has increased the percentage rate to 6%. Tobacco consumption in Europe has not changed and the gradual reduction in European production has been replaced by tobacco imports. The parallel question of maintaining the CMO in tobacco and therefore of postponing the 2004 reform that should have applied from 2010 must be addressed during the health check of the CAP because decoupling causes the almost total abandonment of production with no sustainable alternative from the point of view of the economy and jobs, which has had very serious consequences for the rural areas concerned but no impact on public health.

I do not think the fight against smoking and the extension of a transitional period enabling European producers to find alternatives to growing tobacco and reduce the negative impact on our regions are mutually exclusive.

Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Financing of the Community Tobacco Fund is aimed exclusively at promoting information initiatives on the damage tobacco products can cause. The proposal presented by 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 47

the European Commission provides for the transfer of an amount equal to 5% of the tobacco aid granted for the calendar years 2008 and 2009. For its part, Parliament is proposing the transfer of 6% of tobacco aid granted for the period 2009 to 2012, assuming that aid to producers is continued. As we know, the European Commission has, unfortunately, moved towards decoupling production aid, which has been instrumental in reducing tobacco production in Portugal, although tobacco is still being imported from producer countries. The Commission is still linking this Fund to the system of support for tobacco growers on the grounds that it is the only source of financing provided for. In line with that rationale, and based on the view that information campaigns will continue to be of value, the amendments would seem to be appropriate. It also seems relevant to support the recent formal request made to the Commission by almost all the tobacco-producing Member States, for the Commission to bring forward a proposal for a regulation extending the current system of support for tobacco production until 2013, for consideration as part of the discussions in progress on the CAP ‘health check’.

Neena Gill (PSE), in writing. − I have voted against this report because as someone who has argued from the very outset against subsidies for tobacco production, I believe that it would be devastating to extend the phasing out of tobacco subsidies from 2009 to 2012. I support the European Commission's proposal which indicates there is no justification for tobacco subsidies to continue to be linked to tobacco production. I believe that the Parliament's report which tries to reopen the debate about phasing out of subsidies by 2009 is totally unacceptable.

I see no logical reason to continue supporting tobacco production particularly due to the negative consequences tobacco has on health and healthcare costs.

Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted against the Berlato report on the Community Tobacco Fund. The EU, in harmony with numerous Member States, has sought to reduce tobacco use by measures such as the ban on tobacco advertising. It is therefore rank hypocrisy for the EU to continue to fund tobacco growers within Europe.

Kartika Tamara Liotard, Erik Meijer, Esko Seppänen, Søren Bo Søndergaard and Eva-Britt Svensson (GUE/NGL), in writing. − The European Parliament resolution on the Tobacco Fund proposes to extend agricultural subsidies on tobacco. We vote against in protest at the whole system of tobacco subsidies. For the EU to financially support the growth of tobacco is ridiculous, to use part of this money to support anti-smoking campaigns hypocritical. All agricultural subsidies for tobacco should be abolished immediately. Anti-smoking campaigns are useful but can easily be financed in other ways.

David Martin (PSE), in writing. − Sergia Belato’s report on the Community Tobacco Fund seeks to reopen the debate on extending tobacco subsidies until 2012. There is no justification for tobacco subsidies to be given to farmers from both a public health and economic perspective, therefore their extension is simply not necessary. Indeed, given the EU's stance on tobacco, I find the proposals contained in the report to be not only hypocritical but immoral. I therefore could not vote in favour of the report.

Dimitrios Papadimoulis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I have voted in favour of the Berlato report, as has the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left. It guarantees Community subsidies for tobacco growers for a further period and affords them protection against unfavourable discrimination in relation to growers of other agricultural products, for which subsidies are to continue. It is particularly important to make use of all the possibilities offered by existing resources. We must prevent tobacco growing from being abandoned and stop the exodus of the rural population during this transitional period for the crop.

Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański (UEN), in writing. − (PL) Although the vote on the Belato report was positive, it does not resolve the problem of smoking and tobacco production.

You could say that we have postponed a decision on these important matters, by several years. This problem will consequently return and will remain a problem for as long as people keep smoking tobacco. It will need to be solved, but not at the cost of farmers who have tied themselves to tobacco production and incurred the relevant investment outlay. 48 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

Tobacco growing provides a living for tens of thousands of families, who often have no other way of obtaining income, as, for example, in regions of Poland with poor soils. This is why we need strategic decisions today, taken with due consideration, not under pressure from lobbyists representing intermediaries and traders functioning in an international system.

Luca Romagnoli (NI), in writing. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to congratulate Mr Berlato and voice my support for his report. The report is extremely balanced and represents a rare and positive example of integration between the EU’s agricultural and health policies. By proposing to increase the percentage rate of the deduction for subsidies paid to tobacco growers and releasing additional funding of over EUR 81 million for anti-smoking campaigns, the report manages to satisfy both camps with regard to certain sensitive areas. On the other hand, this report extends partially coupled aid to producers at no additional cost to the EU budget, and without discriminating between them and other agricultural sectors, confirming the position expressed by Parliament in Strasbourg in March 2004.

Brian Simpson (PSE), in writing. − You will be aware that over many years this Parliament has been very vocal in its efforts to highlight the dangers to health of smoking tobacco. Yet through all that time the European Union has given millions of in support to farmers for growing that very same product.

It really is hypocritical in the extreme to carry on such a policy. The report from the Committee on Agriculture tries to reopen the debate on extending tobacco subsidies until 2012. Yet the Commission proposal, that the report was allegedly drawn up in response to, is about extending the financing of the Community Tobacco Fund, which as we know is used to warn of the dangers of smoking tobacco. What was attempted here by the Agriculture Committee was a sleight of hand that would have done any top-class magician proud, but thankfully this has been spotted and hopefully exposed for what it really is; namely an attempt to extend subsidies to tobacco farmers. This has to be resisted by this Parliament on moral, economic and health grounds. The Commission's position is clear. There is no justification for tobacco subsidies linked to production. It is now high time Parliament adopted the same line by rejecting the Agriculture Committee stance on this issue. That is why I shall vote against.

Catherine Stihler (PSE), in writing. − Over half a million EU citizens die every year due to tobacco addiction. Not a penny of EU taxpayers’ money should go on the Community Tobacco Fund. The Community Tobacco Fund should cease to exist.

−Report: Bairbre de Brún (A6-0133/2008)

Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the own-initiative report by my British fellow Member Mrs de Brún on the evaluation of the PEACE Programme (EU Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation in Northern Ireland) which stresses that local empowerment has been an essential part of peace-building in Northern Ireland and that the participation of civil society in this process has largely contributed to improving local policy making and implementation. I support the idea that cooperation between participants in programmes financed by PEACE and IFI (International Fund for Ireland) should not cease when the programmes come to an end.

Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted in favour of the de Brún report on the PEACE Programme which rightly highlights the importance of local empowerment in the peace-building process. The PEACE Programmes have made a valuable contribution to the peace process in Ireland and efforts to build upon this in the future are to be welcomed.

Catherine Stihler (PSE), in writing. − I am pleased to support the PEACE programme and hope it will continue to help communities at a grass-root level. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 49

- Report: Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf (A6-0130/2008)

Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by my German fellow Member, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, which proposes to modify the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning meat and livestock statistics, but in a way that should permit agreement at the first reading under the codecision procedure. Livestock statistics (twice a year for pigs and bovine animals, and once a year for sheep and goats), monthly slaughtering statistics (head and carcass weight of pigs, bovine animals, sheep, goats and poultry) and meat production forecasts (meat from pigs, bovine animals, sheep and goats) are essential for managing EU markets but the legislation in force, which had become very complex, urgently needed to be dealt with. It seems sensible to include poultry meat in addition to statistics for meat from pigs, bovine animals, sheep and goats.

Constantin Dumitriu (PPE-DE), in writing. − (RO) The simplification of procedures is a major objective of the European institutions, which are aware that overregulation is a burden both for their operation and for the efficiency and competitiveness of economic operators. For the farmers and agricultural producers in Romania, reducing the bureaucratic burden is a requirement in order to be able to fully benefit from the advantages of joining the European Union. The statistical reports should be taken into consideration both by Eurostat and in particular by the national institutions and companies. As regards meat, the statistical data represent a picture that allows taking actions in due time in order to regulate the market, by establishing intervention mechanisms. The statistical reports should be unitary, correct and available in due time in order to avoid major imbalances on the Community market, affecting producers, consumers or both groups equally. This report has precisely this mission and I welcome it! At the same time, national authorities should also rigorously (and, where necessary, firmly) implement actions that would result in seriousness from respondents. This issue should be treated with the same care both by the person collecting and processing statistical data and by the economic agents sending them. Apart from rigorousness, this regulation will also bring about the uniformity of these data by common standards applicable across the European Union.

David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I welcome Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf’s report on the proposal for a regulation concerning meat and livestock statistics. The regulation aims to simplify existing legislation in this area. I voted in support of the report’s recommendations.

− Report: Anne Van Lancker (A6-0172/2008)

Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by my Belgian fellow Member Mrs Van Lancker, written within the framework of the consultation procedure, on the proposal for a Council decision on guidelines for employment policies of the Member States. I salute the excellent job done by my colleague and friend Mrs Morin, the rapporteur for our political group, particularly on flexicurity. At the risk of getting off the subject a little, since this Council decision basically aims only to make recommendations to the Member States on the basis of Article 128 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, I am disappointed that, although it was its duty in application of Article 138 of this Treaty, the Committee does not push forward the social partners and affirm that the time has come to create European employment legislation with the support of these social partners based on the procedure laid down in Article 139 of the EC Treaty. We cannot have an ambitious employment policy if we do not establish European labour legislation with the support of the social partners.

Alessandro Battilocchio (PSE), in writing. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Lisbon Strategy, particularly following the mid-term review, represents the EU’s most important strategic commitment and is finally being accompanied by concrete results in terms of growth and employment.

In this respect, Mrs Van Lancker, while recognising that the strategy has the advantage of having contributed to job creation, expresses the view that quality and safety need to be improved. It should be noted in fact that despite the steady fall in the number of unemployed, the number of workers with fixed-term contracts is on the increase, with clear implications and consequences. The figures reveal the need to monitor individual Member States to ensure that they tackle employment issues with an increasingly balanced, flexicurity approach: this means new jobs, but also better conditions for workers in general. 50 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

As the rapporteur emphasises, however, the Lisbon Agenda needs to take more account of common social objectives: the buzzword of our strategy should now be inclusion, and not just growth and employment.

Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The current situation shows that, ten years after the first guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States, there is ever less employment with rights, which in itself shows that the strategy is not aimed at the promotion of employment with rights. On the other hand, the constant changes to those guidelines accompanied by the European Union’s ever more neoliberal economic guidelines have contributed to increased job insecurity. Although the rapporteur includes some palliatives concerning poverty or social inclusion, there is in fact no mention of the need to break away from the present macroeconomic and employment guidelines, which are completely neoliberal and where competition and flexibility reigns supreme, which is why such proposals amount to nothing more than a smoke screen, failing to tackle the root cause of the problems. Some other proposals even tend to promote flexicurity or, rather, the deregulation of the labour market, defending flexible and reliable contractual arrangements through modern labour laws, collective agreements and work organisation, with the indication that the Member States should implement their own action plans based on the common principles of flexicurity adopted by the Council. We therefore voted against the report.

Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted in favour of the Van Lancker Report dealing with Member States' employment policies. The report correctly emphasises the need for Member States to implement guidelines in a way which seeks to combat discrimination whether it is based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age, or sexual orientation. The report also calls for Member States to recognise national traditions in implementing employment policy. I consider that the recognition of Europe's diverse traditions should be at the heart of all EU policy.

Stanisław Jałowiecki (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PL) I abstained from the vote on Mrs Van Lancker’s report on employment policy guidelines. The report did not, unfortunately, succeed in avoiding contradictions. On the one hand it contains plenty of phrases such as ‘knowledge-based society’, ‘competitiveness’ and ‘technological challenges’ while on the other hand there is talk of the need to ensure ‘employment security’, ‘stable employment’ and such like. The former stresses intentions, the latter, keeping things as they are. No progress can be made without disrupting the employment structure. This has never happened in history. Instead of talking about employment security, understood as maintaining existing jobs and types of work, then, we should talk about something else, namely ensuring access to work; access to work that exists now, at this moment in time. This should be our common concern.

Carl Lang (NI), in writing. – (FR) The employment situation in the European Union is not very good. The average unemployment rate of 7.3% in 2007, not taking account of assisted jobs, is higher than that of the other major economic blocs. In North America it is less than 5%. Far from improving the situation, the guidelines that have been presented to us will make it worse. The Lisbon Strategy, viewed in a positive light by the rapporteur, opens our economies up to unfair competition, particularly from communist , which practises true social dumping. Furthermore, by demanding the reduction of ‘employment gaps between third country nationals and EU citizens’, the report clearly forms part of the immigrationist policy pursued for decades in our countries which, by bringing more than 1.5 million immigrants in from outside Europe, is in the process of turning us into third world nations. Restoring national preference, which is fair positive discrimination, reducing the weight of immigration and thereby reducing the tax burden on our companies and employees, and implementing the principle of to protect the European market: these are the principal measures that should be taken to develop employment in Europe.

David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I salute the rapporteur’s move to strengthen the social dimension of the Lisbon strategy. The call for the introduction of a balanced approach to ‘flexicurity’ and the introduction of a clause on active inclusion, I feel, will strengthen employment policy across Europe. I voted in favour of the report.

Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański (UEN), in writing. − (PL) There are numerous contradictions in the report on employment policy in the Member States. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 51

The rapporteur writes that the renewed Lisbon Strategy is delivering results in, among other areas, a rise in GDP in the EU in recent years and a fall in unemployment, and that the employment guidelines do not need a complete revision, but merely amendments to a number of individual points. The rapporteur also notes that in recent years as many as 6 million young people aged between 18 and 24 have left school early and discontinued their education, and that youth unemployment represents 40% of total unemployment in the EU, with this percentage being twice as high among migrants. In addition 78 million people are living in poverty, which is twice the population of Poland. She furthermore considers the rise in the number of jobs obtained at the cost of a fall in their quality, and the rise in the percentage of people employed part-time and for fixed periods, often under the terms of contracts concluded under duress. Reality speaks for itself, but we do not always want to listen. The reality is that society is not integrating, but dividing. Poverty is not diminishing, but spreading with each year that passes. Discrimination against women, older people and migrants in the labour market is not falling, and stereotypes in thought and in action are failing to disappear.

Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), in writing. − (SV) By and large the content of the report is positive, but it is hypocrisy to speak of social responsibility, local economy and equality while at the same time seeking to ensure that procurement rules prohibit such things from being taken into account. I will not contribute to this. The report gives a false impression of reality, and I therefore abstain in the vote.

Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE), in writing. − (PL) I support this report and Mrs Van Lancker’s view that the common social objectives of the Member States should be better reflected in the Lisbon agenda. I also support the transformation of the current Lisbon Strategy for growth and jobs into a strategy based on growth, jobs and integration. I feel it is essential to promote common social standards at EU level. The creation of quality jobs is necessary, along with a strengthening of the values of the European social model. In my view, one of the key tasks in the EU Sustainable Development Strategy is the establishment of an integrating society in which aims and operational strivings take priority in order to limit the number of people threatened by poverty and social exclusion and greatly increase the part played by women, older people and migrants in the labour market and promote youth employment.

− Report: Janusz Lewandowski (A6-0181/2008)

Richard James Ashworth (PPE-DE), in writing. − This report sets some important guidelines in the budgetary process of the 2009 budget and, overall, we strongly agree with the rapporteur's determination to continue to respect the voluntarily imposed 20% ceiling on parliamentary expenditure. 2009 will be a year that will bring much change to the way the Parliament works and we believe that, in order to maintain this discipline, it will be necessary to closely scrutinise all spending proposals to ensure that they deliver value for money to the taxpayer. In particular we make no apology for reminding the Parliament that the biggest single saving they could make would be to abandon the two seat working of the Parliament. We also strongly support the rapporteur's proposals to provide the means for the removal of asbestos from the Strasbourg Parliament buildings. British Conservatives look forward to receiving the rapporteur's further thoughts in due course, and therefore have abstained on the final vote on this report.

Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by my Polish colleague Mr Lewandowski on Parliament’s estimate of revenue and expenditure for the financial year 2009. This budget has to meet major challenges such as the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon if it is ratified by the Member States, the fact that 2009 is an election year for Parliament and the entry into force of the new Statute for Members Although I obviously agree with the fact that we need to be vigilant about the status of budgetary expenditure, I think we must be unyielding over expenditure associated with multilingualism (translation and interpreting), which is a condition of the political success of the European Union. We should also develop facilities for MEPs to receive visitors because these visits are very much appreciated and help citizens to get to know more about the European Union. 52 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

Finally, in my opinion we should increase the staff of MEPs and the European Parliament’s committees in order to ensure their independence and the high standard of their work, for example, when dealing with the other European institutions, lobby groups or national parliaments.

Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (PSE), in writing. − (PL) The year 2009 will bring many challenges for the European Parliament, linked above all to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the elections to Parliament, the new Statute for Members and the change of term. The overall budget level for 2009 will have to meet the challenges despite being below Parliament’s traditional voluntary limitation to 20% of outlay on administration. The use in this year’s procedure of a pilot process involving early and closer cooperation between the Bureau and the Committee on Budgets in the case of all items with significant budgetary implications is worthy of note. The new approach is aimed at ensuring the most rational use of available means and identifying potential savings. I must state my satisfaction at the sensible estimations of expenditure on the new Statute for Members, especially as there is potential to fine-tune the amount at a later stage. It is also pleasing to see the integration of the proposed 65 new posts into the estimates for 2009 with the idea of strengthening Parliament’s legislative activity and services to Members, while at the same time placing 15% of those appropriations in reserve. The announcement that the priorities established in the 2008 budget will continue in connection with interpreting and with the analytical service of the library is also pleasing. A successful conclusion to this year’s budgetary procedure will also require debates to be held and specific decisions to be taken without delay concerning Parliament’s policy on real estate.

Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The budgetary process has now begun with the submission of the Commission’s proposed Community budget for 2009. In previous budgetary processes, the European Parliament’s budget has accounted for approximately 20% of the amount budgeted under heading 5 – (administrative expenditure) of the multi-annual financial framework. The rapporteur is proposing that similar levels should be retained for the 2009 budget. Such a decision should not block or hinder the availability of financial resources required to respond appropriately to the needs already mentioned to increase the number of staff and improve interpretation and translation services, respecting equality and the right to use all the official languages in the European Parliament and the activities it promotes. Furthermore, this has been a recurring problem, since the need to improve services such as interpretation and translation is frequently mentioned, but the financial resources required are not allocated; rules created specifically to discourage the use of different languages are frequently applied. Just look at the criteria adopted in the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assemblies. On the other hand the report makes no mention of guaranteeing workers’ rights, in particular with regard to the EP’s increased outsourcing of services over recent years.

Cătălin-Ioan Nechifor (PSE), in writing. − (RO) The European Parliament should become aware of the importance of the principle of solidarity, according to which the regions that have remained behind or are less developed should be supported, including financially, from the European Union budget. Unfortunately, approximately one year since its accession, Romania continues to dominate the top regarding the Gross Domestic Product per inhabitant at regional level. 6 out of the 8 regions are among the 15 less developed regions in the EU and the North East Development Region where I come from still remains the poorest of the regions in the 27 Member States. Romania’s rhythm of economic growth is insufficient at this moment in order to very rapidly reduce the gaps that separate us and the disparities we find everywhere and the extremely low absorption of structural funds is certainly one of the reasons that place us near the top of the European Union poverty list. This is why the politization of the central administrative act makes Romania become a net contributor to the EU budget, paying approximately 1.1 billion euros last year.

The only consolation that remains is that 16 million euros will be returned to our country due to the fact that 2007 was the first year in which a budgetary surplus was recorded.

Athanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The employment guidelines drawn up by the EU in collaboration with centre-left and centre-right governments have been enthusiastically contributed to by 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 53

the European Parliament’s political representatives of capitalism. They promote the most barbarous exploitation of the working class in order to achieve the aim of the Lisbon Strategy, which is the unrestrained growth of profit for plutocrats. At the centre of EU and government policy is the notorious ‘flexicurity’, which spells out the complete dismantling of labour relations. The EU is using unemployment as a means of intimidating workers. It is doing away with collective agreements and full-time steady employment. These are being replaced with individualised employment contracts and mainly part-time jobs having precious little in the way of labour, wage, social, insurance or pension rights. The EU aims to strike a decisive blow against state systems of social protection, insurance and pensions in all Member States. In the mediaeval employment conditions being prepared by the EU, the ‘model’ employee as described in EU employment guidelines is an ‘employable’ person working under conditions of every conceivable form of part-time work. He or she has no rights, having been trained and retrained in disposable skills according to the capitalist needs of the time. He or she is constantly on the move in search of employment, works until advanced old age or even death, and provides untold riches to be plundered by the plutocracy.

− Report: Jens Holm (A6-0134/2008)

Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the own-initiative report by my Swedish fellow Member Mr Holm on trade in raw materials and commodities. I agree with the idea that there is a need to secure the European Union’s supply of raw materials and to ensure access to raw materials on the world markets, while noting that the European Union currently does not provide a coherent strategy that would allow its economy to face the challenges to its competitiveness due to enhanced competition for access to raw materials. I am disappointed that the report does not discuss the issues linked to currency manipulation in the world which, together with reduced exchange rates, distorts fair competition. Among the raw materials, oil would have merited particular examination and I reiterate my proposal to create a European instrument for the annual regulation of crude oil prices, which is at least worth looking into – not to fight market forces, which we have to accept, but to regulate the suddenness of their application in the internal market and soften the impact of crude oil price rises in the cost/price chain of the sectors concerned (fishing, transport, etc.).

Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) Mr Holm’s report seems to identify fairly clearly the problems the world is currently facing because of the unprecedented rise in the cost of raw materials. For European countries without natural resources of their own, this means problems with competitiveness, and therefore jobs, security of supply, greater dependence, and so on, and for poorer countries, puts their development in jeopardy and causes food shortage riots and the like. Although some of the causes are mentioned, particularly the predatory behaviour of some emerging countries like China and the liberalisation of trade in agricultural products, others – such as speculation, Europe’s Malthusian agricultural policy emanating from Brussels, the principle itself of global free trade, etc. – are obscured or nearly obscured. As for the solutions, it is clear that Parliament believes essentially in the regulatory virtues of the free, competitive market. However, that market is now revealing its limitations, and cruelly so. Energy, food and raw materials are not just products like any other: people’s survival depends on them. It is time that in its international trade relations, Europe, from Brussels, defended its own interests and those of its Member States first and foremost, instead of trying to create a globalist utopia at any cost, human or social.

Vasco Graça Moura (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PT) This report considers aspects beyond traditional trade in raw materials and commodities. In the new international situation various production factors and components may be regarded as raw materials, including energy. The increase in the prices of those products is serious for European industry, which imports them from outside its borders. The markets respond to the increase in demand on the part of more producers facing natural and environmental condition and react to financial speculation. It is worrying that this international situation has encouraged price levels capable of wiping out economic growth in Europe. Once that trend is established, the race for resources will give rise to pressure and shortages which are likely to pose a challenge to many generations of managers and will certainly have implications for the governance of the modern world. By means of this report the European Parliament calls on the Commission to raise within the WTO issues of access to raw material markets. The objective is to obtain reciprocity and one appropriate route is via the WTO. Negotiations on these products should never go below regional level so as to promote integration, 54 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

development and sustainability. In order to prevent major speculation and conflict, we must ensure that our trading partners holding these resources receive a fair price for their commodities.

Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We do not share the vision with regard to trade in raw materials contained in the report. We do not agree with the criticism that describes policies and measures introduced by third countries as: ‘creating obstacles to free and fair access to raw materials (...), which have the effect of limiting access by EU industries (!) to raw materials and commodities’. Each country has the inalienable sovereign right to decide how it uses its raw materials or how it trades in its commodities. It is for the people of each country to decide upon the use of their resources and of the wealth created. The report does not mention that the real problem actually lies with the EU’s neoliberal model. Steeped in neo-colonial ambitions, it seeks to return many countries to the role of producers of raw materials for the countries of the EU, using technology and dominance and control of the market mechanisms – including financial speculation – to promote economic dependence and exploitation by the multinationals. What is needed is a clear break from the reigning economic and social model, ending dominator/dominated relationships, defending national sovereignty, developing the economic potential of each country and complementarity and solidarity in its external relations, and production geared to satisfying the needs of the people and to preserving the planet.

Jens Holm (GUE/NGL), in writing. − The report dealing with trade in raw materials and commodities expresses many important issues from a development perspective. The report emphasises the problematic occurrence of speculation in inflating prices and increasing volatility on the markets, which needs to be regulated. It also calls for more support for diversification in developing countries, and highlights the importance of policy space for these countries to enable the development of not least their agricultural sector. The report also criticises the increase of meat consumption, and asks for ways of tackling that. However, the report also expresses points, which we find deeply problematic. This refers foremost to the repeated emphasis on the international competitiveness and the urge for the European industry to secure cheap access to raw materials. We do not support this focus, and can only conclude that the neoliberal face of the EU once more has been articulated. In general the report is a step in the right direction compared with earlier positions of Parliament on trade policy.

David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I welcome Jens Holm’s report on trade in raw materials and commodities. Free and fair access to raw materials is important for the EU economy. Nevertheless, the implications of price volatility in raw materials and commodities for developing countries also need to be taken into account. I voted in favour of the report.

Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. – Some news, although good in itself, cannot fail to give us concern as regards the consequences. That is partly the case with the increase in the price of raw materials. The good news is that, as shown by various indices, an ever larger proportion of the world’s population is attaining levels of consumption previously unknown to them. The problem, however, lies in some of the consequences, above all the immediate consequences that such growth in consumption – and therefore in demand – might have. The laws of economics apply even in distorted markets and an increase in demand results either in an increase in supply or, as in this case, in an increase in price. That is what has happened. The European Union should encourage a general opening up of markets, so that ever more producers are able to take advantage of the increase in demand and it should foster an increase in trade. At the same time we have a duty to provide direct support to those immediately hit by these new circumstances: those who are unable to face the increase in the price of essential goods. Market distortion rarely produces positive effects, above all in the long term, but there is nothing to stop us, quite the reverse, from providing funding for those who have less.

Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), in writing. − (NL) Something is clearly going wrong with the trade in raw materials and commodities. There is currently much speculation on the prices of raw materials. Minerals, for example, are fairly expensive. Despite their natural resources, countries that are rich in minerals are remaining poor or becoming even poorer. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 55

Developing countries are also unsure of their own food supply, despite the fact that they produce a great deal of food. The problem is that food is being exported on a massive scale at excessively low prices. Furthermore, climate change forces us to manage this energy-guzzling market differently: extraction of minerals is to be discouraged, and localised food production and consumption are preferable to the global trade in agricultural products. In short, the trade in raw materials and commodities, as regulated today, has a highly disruptive effect and requires a multilateral approach. The report on the trade in raw materials and commodities initially comprised a just complaint against the ultraliberal trade policy proposed by the EU in late 2006. In the meantime, however, it has been toned down to such an extent that I can no longer lend it my support. For instance, it contains barely any significant policy proposals. Even worse is the fact that the report labels free access to raw materials and commodities as a right of the EU and pushes forward a bilateral trade policy as the ideal instrument.

− Report: Margie Sudre (A6-0158/2008)

Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the own-initiative report by my French colleague and friend Mrs Sudre, which she wrote in response to the Commission communication on the strategy for the outermost regions (ORs). I support the idea that taking into account increasingly mathematical justifications for the measures taken should not serve as a pretext for calling into question part of the Union’s policy to assist the ORs nor deter actors by imposing conditions on them which are too difficult to meet. Community interventions should be a catalyst for a spirit of enterprise that will transform the ORs into centres of excellence, driven by sectors that fully exploit their advantages and know-how, such as waste management, renewable energies, energy self-sufficiency, biodiversity, student mobility, research into climate change and crisis management. Finally, I support the fact that the future common immigration policy should devote special attention to the position of ORs, which are all EU external borders. I applaud the job done by Mrs Sudre which, unremittingly and with a great deal of skill, determination and compassion, speaks up on behalf of the outermost regions.

Emanuel Jardim Fernandes (PSE), in writing. – (PT) The motion for a resolution in this report contains recommendations on the assessment and future prospects of the strategy for the outermost regions, including in particular: – indicators other than merely GDP being used to measure the degree of cohesion achieved; – cohesion policy being better coordinated with other Community policies across the board, so as to enhance synergies, and current and future European policies being more effectively adapted to the realities of the situation of the outermost regions; – policies and measures in their favour that are not transitional and are adapted to their different needs and offer solutions for the permanent constraints to which they are subject; – Community support for agriculture in the ORs and provision for support measures for their respective fishing industries; – differential treatment in the transport sector, particularly as regards the inclusion of civil aviation in the Emission Trading Scheme; – the need for the debate on the future of the strategy for the ORs to include Lisbon strategy implementation in their regard; – the future common immigration policy should devote special attention to the position of ORs; – placing ORs at the heart of EU maritime policy; – ensuring future Community funding of the strategy for the ORs and the compensation of handicaps linked to their outermost status.

The report deserved my support and that of my group. I called for the report to be adopted and voted in favour.

Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We regret that the majority in Parliament rejected our amendments seeking to incorporate into the motion for a resolution on the future of EU policy for the 56 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

Outermost Regions (ORs) – adopted today in plenary – the valuable and important proposals in the interests of the ORs, approved in the Committee on Fisheries. Some people argue that it is a resolution on rather than on fisheries. That is a fallacy. The motion for a resolution is the EP’s contribution on the future of Community policies for the ORs, and it is here in Parliament that we shall have to explain the proposals approved, in particular those adopted in the EP Committee on Fisheries – which is what happened with the EP resolution on maritime policy. That is why we sought to present them again and also to be consistent with the view which we take in Portugal. On the other hand, we regret the rejection of our proposal that clearly explained that the Community support measures for the ORs should be of a permanent nature. The rapporteur states that the aim is that eventually these measures will no longer be necessary. That is basically a (pseudo) argument to cover up the fact that the constraints faced by the ORs are permanent in nature and will need to be negotiated in every budget or Community framework.

Fernand Le Rachinel (NI), in writing. – (FR) France is very concerned about the European Union’s policy on the outermost regions. It is essential that the specific characteristics of these regions be taken into account, much more and much better than they are now, by the politicians in Brussels, especially: - through trade policy, as production by the outermost regions is in competition with that of the neighbouring countries that benefit from highly preferential conditions from the EU;

- through immigration policy, as these regions are particularly vulnerable to immigration and the influx of illegal immigrants is creating economic and social problems there that are far beyond the local capacity to overcome them; - through provisions concerning State aid and especially by maintaining the tax exemptions that these regions benefit from, which are periodically called into question in the name of European law. I am particularly worried about the legal ambiguity that exists regarding Saint-Barthélemy: this small French island has been a territorial authority since 2007, and when it changed its status it wanted to preserve the tax exemption that is essential for its economic survival. However, the EU appears to consider it to be among the outermost regions, in other words a territory of the Union that is subject to Community law. It would be unacceptable for this ambiguity to put at risk the desire for autonomy that was clearly expressed by 95% of the population.

Ramona Nicole Mănescu (ALDE), in writing. − (RO) The main issue of the seven ultra peripheral regions is that, although they represent 1% of the European Union population, they deal with a delicate economic and social situation, aggravated by their insular position far away from the continent, the difficult surface, relief and climate, as well as their economic dependence on a limited number of products. Taking the actions listed by the Commission and supported by the Rapporteur a priority, such as the improvement of competitiveness, reducing difficulties related to accessibility and integration of ultra peripheral regions into the regional geographic environment, we can contribute to improving the socio-economic situation of these regions, homogenising their development with the other regions of the European Union and turning to good account their resources complementarily with the Community requirements. This is also one of the reasons why I voted for this report and I would like to add the need to give increased attention to ports, since 6 out of the 7 ultra peripheral regions are islands. The modernization of ports infrastructure can contribute to the promotion and development of the tourism industry, production sector and local markets.

Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) Supporting the outermost regions of the European Union is in keeping with EU thinking on solidarity in order to reduce the disadvantages generated by their being difficult to access. In particular, we certainly need to ensure that these regions do not lose their agricultural self-sufficiency capability, which also applies generally to the European Union as a whole. In this regard it must be our common endeavour to maintain small family farms – also those of hill farmers in , for instance, as well as every individual traditional small, medium-sized and organic farmer – so that they can continue their ecologically useful work and we do not lose our food sovereignty to giant farms or become dependent on big agricultural concerns. For this reason I voted in favour of the Sudre report. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 57

Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PT) The ORs have specific characteristics that have come to be taken into account in measures to promote European growth and development. However, there is still much to do for further development of those regions and for us to draw more benefit from that frontier area with other global economic blocs. Cross-sectoral and complementary measures in favour of the ORs have helped to improve the economic and social situation of these regions and it is still important to work on improved accessibility, stronger competitiveness and better regional integration. Nevertheless, there are still difficulties on the ground that are not being taken into account, such as the preservation of traditional agriculture, increased support for the development of key sectors or the maintenance of differentiated tax regimes. Making the most of the specific assets of the ORs is thus the strategy that will ensure the sustainable development of the outermost regions in terms of attraction and cooperation. Making new priorities of climate change, demographic change and migration management, agriculture and maritime policy is a good measure that needs to be complemented by the necessary diversification of OR economies, by their specific characteristics and by exploiting the rules in force as widely as possible, using the most appropriate tools for resolving the specific problems faced by the ORs.

− Report: Lasse Lehtinen A6-0155/2008)

Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I abstained from voting on the own-initiative report by my Finnish fellow Member Mr Lehtinen, in response to the Commission communication on Community consumer policy strategy for 2007-2013.

I am naturally in agreement on the fact that the 493 million European consumers should be at the heart of the three main challenges that the Union has to face: growth, employment and the need to form closer links with citizens, and that they are the life force of the economy, as their consumption represents 58% of the EU’s GDP. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that while we have succeeded with the internal market through competition; in other words paying particular attention to consumers, I consider that we should, in response to the current global challenges, place producers at the heart of our concerns. Moreover, in the absence of a serious legal study, I have considerable reservations about the hasty manner in which the report tackles the issue of collective action by consumers against producers by asking the Commission to put forward a comprehensive solution at European level offering all consumers access to collective appeal mechanisms for settling cross-border disputes.

Alessandro Battilocchio (PSE), in writing. – (IT) To offer consumers better protection, Mr Lehtinen’s report proposes improving the existing legislation in the relevant areas, making it simpler and smoothing out any regional differences. The EU has a duty to develop a real transnational economic policy aimed at the protection of consumer rights and at safeguards for consumer health. The proposal in question – which I support – is intended to create a harmonious legal framework to guarantee a solid, integrated system for product safety and to instil real consumer confidence in goods on the European market, thereby triggering widespread growth in consumption. To arrive at an effective consumer protection policy, however, the EU must invest a great deal of energy in improving market surveillance, if necessary by stepping up international cooperation, and in education and awareness-raising campaigns for the consumers themselves: until consumers have been persuaded that its products are completely safe, the European market cannot realise its full potential. This would allow Europe to become a truly competitive market able to satisfy and protect its consumers and encourage them to be bolder: real players in the market, in fact.

Adam Bielan (UEN), in writing. − (PL) I supported Mr Lehtinen’s report because the transparency of the regulations protecting European consumers is beneficial to those consumers and also to manufacturers who are competing among themselves. Economic changes in the new Member States have brought about the introduction of new principles of action for market entities. The range of goods on offer to consumers today is increasingly rich in terms of both products and services. I nevertheless feel that the position of consumers, especially in the new Member States, where we all recall the beginnings of the free market, remains relatively weak vis-à-vis large concerns. It requires greater transparency and an upgrading of the relevant legal framework guaranteeing consumers suitable protection of their rights. 58 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

I was also glad to accept that part of the report in which the rapporteur speaks in favour of support for small and medium-sized enterprises in the EU. In my region, Małopolska, such enterprises account for 95% of the total, and most of them have not been around for very long (30% are less than 5 years old).

Colm Burke and Malcolm Harbour (PPE-DE), in writing. − The EPP-ED Group strongly supports a comprehensive programme of actions to inform and empower consumers in Europe's Single Market. We want consumers to take maximum benefits from the choice, diversity and innovation available in a thriving market of nearly 500 million consumers, the largest retail market in the world. We also want consumers to be able to enjoy their rights of redress quickly and effectively if they run into problems. We support easy and effective access to justice especially through non-judicial means, backed as last resort by judicial remedies. We abstained on the vote today because the PSE has hijacked a very positive report by inserting a call for an entirely untested and potentially very costly legal provision for European level enforcement of collective rights. The Commission is already consulting extensively on the whole issue of consumers' rights enforcement. It is far too early to draw any conclusions on the changes that might be needed. Much can be done by improving existing redress mechanisms, and stepping up cooperation between Member States. The PSE are harming consumer's rights by trying to divert attention away from the need for more determined actions at all levels to improve the enforcement of consumers' rights, while ... (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 163).

Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) A genuine consumer protection policy must obey various principles. Firstly, there must be a fair income distribution and redistribution policy, based on decent wages, adequate returns for producers, specifically small- and micro-scale farmers, manufacturers and traders, to encourage markets close to the areas where the food is produced and promote food security and sovereignty. Secondly, there must be an effective policy to combat speculative trade and finance, and there must be information for consumers and guarantee of transparency. The report, however, pays little attention to these issues; on the contrary, it advocates positions that are more concerned with defending the interests of economic and financial groups and liberalising services than with consumers as a whole, although in parts it does contain some positive proposals, except that this is in a totally neoliberal framework in which consumers are the weakest link in the whole process. For example, the report stresses that enhanced liberalisation of the services market in particular is needed to promote competition, thus offering lower prices for consumers, which we well know is contradictory and serves only the interests of companies. That is why we were unable to vote in favour of this report.

Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PL) Consumers are at the heart of the common market and should therefore be its main beneficiaries. In my view, though, a balance should be maintained between legislation that strongly protects consumers and the conditions for the functioning of businesses. Nobody underestimates consumers’ rights to press their claims. I think, though, that we should in particular provide consumers with the opportunity to put their rights into effect rapidly and effectively. In my opinion that extra-judicial means should be especially strongly emphasised when considering consumer complaints. I would like to make the point that, according to data from Business Europe, as many as 90% of disputes relating to consumer rights are settled without recourse to the courts. The cost element of proceeding in this way is also not without significance, as it is very much lower than when courts are involved. I feel that the amendment voted through in Parliament calling for the creation of a European system of collective redress does not guarantee more effective consumer protection. This matter should be considered by the European Commission, and we should delay taking a decision until such time as the results have been published. It may be that this matter is adequately regulated by the Member States’ legislation. Moreover, I fear that this system creates conditions for actions the real beneficiaries of which will not be consumers, but the world of lawyers who profit from the rise in rates for proceedings conducted.

Anna Hedh (PSE), in writing. − (SV) I think it is a good thing that the EU is taking responsibility for consumers and I therefore voted for the report. On the other hand, I am opposed to ideas of harmonising consumer protection in the EU and appealing to more countries to adopt the euro. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 59

Jens Holm, Søren Bo Søndergaard and Eva-Britt Svensson (GUE/NGL), in writing. − The report proposes to establish an EU consumer ombudsman. We are sceptical towards this idea for several reasons: This post may create significant expenses which risk undermining the funding of consumer organisations. Moreover, the creation of another post at European level risks being too remote from citizens. Having said this, we still support the report since its strengthens consumers access to collective redress, which is fundamental for consumers’ trust in making safe cross-border purchases.

Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted against the Lehtinen Report on the consumer policy strategy because, whilst there was much in the Report with which I could agree, I fundamentally reject the call for enhanced liberalisation of services. It is true that certain services can benefit from a liberalised economic environment and the freedom of movement for services is one of the four fundamental freedoms of the EU. However I consider that public services should be run for the benefit of the communities and individuals they serve and not for private profit. Services in areas such as health, education and lifeline transport links should remain publicly owned, publicly accountable and the responsibility of Member States.

David Martin (PSE), in writing. − Lasse Lehtinen’s report on the EU Consumer Policy Strategy 2007-2013 reiterates the need to empower EU consumers and enhance their welfare and protection across the Union. My vote reflects the need for improved consumer protection across the EU.

Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE), in writing. − (PL) EU consumer policy strategy 2007-2013 presents the proper directions for the development of consumer protection, but the point should be made that ad hoc actions are far too little. We must draw up a plan for further specific and consistent steps that will lead to consumer protection becoming an element in all EU regulations. We must make sure that consumer protection itself does not become a separate area in European policy, but is written into every European policy establishing the European internal market. Without the proper protective mechanisms, this important European project of creating a single market will not be completed. We must also bear in mind that protection of EU consumers has an external dimension – one reminder of this at least being the recent problem with imported Chinese toys. Our aim should be to achieve full consumer confidence in all products on sale on the internal market. Furthermore, a true internal market should offer a European system of pursuing collective claims. In setting this up, we must draw conclusions from the US system of class actions, with all its drawbacks.

Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE), in writing. − (NL) Mr President, in principle, the report by Mr Lehtinen has my support. As approved in the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection, it contains all the essential issues we must deal with in response to the Commission communication: the pursuit of a horizontal approach, attention to contract law, the acknowledgement of the role of consumer organisations, the need for balance, the particularity of SMEs, the importance of soft law and of an improved knowledge base, and the need for more attention to the services sector. We also consider the passage on access to redress important. This is a dimension of the maintenance of law and order. It is a pity, however, that an amendment to section 40 was adopted in the plenary sitting that favours group actions before an analysis is available, based upon the examination requested in the report. Group actions encroach fundamentally upon procedural law. It is therefore unacceptable to put the cart before the horse. This is why I have abstained from voting.

− Report: Elizabeth Lynne (A6-0159/2008)

Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I abstained from voting on the own-initiative report by my British fellow Member Mrs Lynne regarding the progress made in equal opportunities and non-discrimination in the Union since the transposition of the directives of 2000. I agree with the fundamentals of the principles laid down in the report, in particular in terms of non-discrimination in fields such as education, lifelong learning, employment, social protection, housing and healthcare, the images of groups that are victims of discrimination in the media and advertising, physical access for disabled people to information, telecommunications, electronic communications, the different methods of transport and public spaces, social benefits and access to them, as well as the goods and services made available to the public, etc. Nevertheless, I am not convinced of the need for a new directive on the basis of Article 13 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community. The political debate needs to continue. To be continued … 60 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE), in writing. − Conservative MEPs abhor discrimination in all its forms: we have tabled our own amendments to this report to make this crystal clear. But while some aspects of ongoing discrimination may still be a problem, to suggest that more EU legislation is somehow the solution is way off the mark. The UK already has a full body of law regarding discrimination, which continues to prove difficult to implement in practice. There needs to be better implementation of existing laws, and better understanding of the problems in their implementation, before we go down the road of yet more EU Directives. This Report, an own-initiative Resolution calling for yet another ‘comprehensive and broad’ EU Directive against Discrimination, is at best political posturing and at worst an open-ended invitation to the Commission to produce yet more and more one-size-fits-all EU legislation in a very sensitive area. As one UK Chamber of Commerce member succinctly put it, ‘Most discrimination is not going to be solved by extra legislation. Time would be much better spent on multi-cultural, multi-faith events to change perceptions’. We agree.

Brian Crowley (UEN), in writing. − This report seeks to go beyond the competence given to the EU by the Member States in the area of anti-discrimination. The Treaties clearly set out those areas where the EU has the power to propose legislation and what Member States can do on their own. This report, which is an own-initiative report, i.e. there is no proposal for legislation from the Commission, goes beyond what the present Treaties allow and also goes beyond the position if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified. In fact, any anti-discrimination measures which fall within EU competence are a matter for our Member State Governments and each Government has a veto. This is NOT for the European Parliament. Under existing Treaty powers, all Member States must agree to laws in the area of anti-discrimination. Indeed Ireland has a very robust body of National anti-Discrimination law, e.g. Equal Status Act, and has an excellent record. Improving the rights of the disabled and specifically addressing restrictions to goods and services is commendable. This report, however, has gone beyond the competence of the Union and as such the Fianna Fáil delegation have rejected it.

Edite Estrela (PSE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report by Mrs Lynne on progress made in equal opportunities and non-discrimination in the EU, since we need to urge the European Commission to keep a strict check on the transposition of Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC on equal treatment between persons, and on the implementation of national laws based on those directives. I would stress that women are particularly vulnerable to acts of discrimination at work, above all as regards their maternity choices. The right to be protected against any form of discrimination is a fundamental and basic principle of the European Union, and yet effective legal instruments and implementation are lacking, so that it is in danger of being emptied of all meaning.

Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The report contains some positive aspects, namely the insistence that the Commission and the Member States should end all discrimination based on the employment contract by ensuring equal treatment for all workers, health and safety protection, provisions for working and rest time, freedom of association and representation, protection against unfair dismissal, collective bargaining and collective action. It also emphasises the importance of access to training as well as the continued protection of acquired rights by covering periods of education and training, improved care opportunities, the maintenance of essential social rights such as pension rights, training rights and the right to unemployment benefits during changes in a person's occupational situation, between employment contracts and between dependent and autonomous employment.

In view of all the above, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats tried to amend the report in various aspects, in particular as regards the content of the demand for a non-discrimination directive; they were not successful since the voting went against them. For our part we reject the PPE-DE’s proposals and supported the rapporteur, although we disagree with some points in the report. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 61

Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) The Lynne report on combating discrimination in the Member States, in particular in employment, is entirely in keeping with the texts adopted by Parliament on this subject. Behind the general terms and the few mentions of women or the disabled, it is not at all difficult to distinguish the real, obsessive focus of your attention: immigrant populations. In order to evade the issue, everything is intentionally mixed together: discrimination against women, young people, the elderly, people of ethnic origin, etc., but also national origin. If there is any type of discrimination that can be perfectly justified morally, legally and politically, it is national and European preference in terms of employment and social benefits. Correlatively, your proposals for ‘positive action’, as you do not dare to use the real words, are well and truly reverse discrimination, the first victims of which would be, and already are, Europeans themselves in their own countries. You think, however, that this type of discrimination is normal.

Genowefa Grabowska (PSE), in writing. – (PL) As a member of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, I entirely support Mrs Lynne’s report. I have no doubt that the international law in force and our own EU adjudications are – from a formal aspect – desirable and good solutions. I therefore regret that their entry into force is continually coming up against numerous obstacles, even in our Europe, which would appear to be more democratic and less discriminatory. It is astounding that we might need to call on EU Member States to treat the provisions of Directive 2000/78/EC with full respect and to carry out constant and systematic monitoring of progress in the elimination of all forms of discrimination from political, social and economic life.

This is of particular importance for the citizens of my country, Poland, who, enjoying the benefits of the common market and freedom of personal movement, live and work in many EU countries. I am very sorry to have to say that there is increasing evidence of discrimination against my fellow countrymen solely on the grounds of their nationality. Disturbing information of this kind is increasingly coming to light from Germany, Great Britain and Ireland. It would be a paradox if the European Parliament were to become so heavily and effectively involved in combating manifestations of discrimination in the world yet were unable to cope with respect for human rights at home – that is, in the EU Member States. All EU citizens surely deserve equal and non-discriminatory treatment!

Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PL) First of all I would like to stress that conducting a debate and taking action in the sphere of opposing discrimination and equal opportunities is very important. As the rapporteur herself points out, however, some Member States have not yet fully implemented the Directives on equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (2000/43/EC) and on equal treatment in employment and occupation (2000/78/EC). Because of problems in implementing their provisions, the key would seem to be to concentrate on proper transposition and more effective execution of the regulations these directives embody. The situation will not be improved by covering more categories of people through more legal enactments. What is most important is to run educational and information campaigns and actions aimed at raising awareness, conducted chiefly at Member State level, which will constitute the right response to the problems in question. The challenges linked to discrimination and equal opportunities are not the same in all Member States. This is also why I am against the creation of more and more legislative acts, as they will not cause problems in the sphere of equal opportunities and discrimination to disappear. Meanwhile, I am of the view that discrimination against disabled people, whose specific situation creates a need for urgent drafting of a comprehensive proposal with implementation at Member State level, requires separate consideration. I hope that the European Commission will take up this initiative in the very near future.

David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I welcome Elizabeth Lynne’s report entitled ‘Progress made in equal opportunities and non-discrimination in the EU’. I believe that we should not be aiming to promote a hierarchy of discrimination in the EU. Colleagues in the Conservative Party obviously feel differently and I would defy them to find an explanation for a position that I find fundamentally indefensible. We need a horizontal Article 13 directive and I voted in favour of Ms Lynne’s report. 62 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE), in writing. − The members of the PPE-DE Group, Mairead McGuinness, Avril Doyle, Gay Mitchell and Colm Burke abstained in the final vote on the Lynne report on ‘Progress made on equal opportunities and non-discrimination in the EU’. The report points out and criticises Member States for ‘deficiencies in the transposition and implementation’ of Directive 2000/78/EC and calls for more rigorous monitoring of Member States’ transposition and implementation as well as strengthening of EU law in this area. We support the call for full transposition and implementation of EU Directives, but note that infringement procedures against some Member States have still not been concluded. We strongly support measures to end discrimination, including additional measures, but cannot at this stage support a call for further EU Directives in this area. It is important that existing EU Directives are fully implemented and the Commission should continue to ensure compliance at Member State level before there could be any consideration of new EU measures.

Rovana Plumb (PSE), in writing. − (RO) I voted for this report and I consider it important for the progress achieved, but especially for the future actions required in order to achieve equality of chances and the fight against discrimination. The provisions of this report represent one of the most progressive parts of the legislation, with real benefits for an important number of European citizens for increasing life quality. According to the data provided by the Commission, 51% of European citizens believe that not enough efforts are made in their country to combat discrimination and provide equal chances.

77% of EU citizens believe that women are under-represented in management positions and 72% believe that the population over 50 is under-represented at the workplace. The success of the report is guaranteed by two things: important support of the population for adopting measures in order to combat discrimination, which would ensure equal opportunities for everyone, as well as our political solid commitment, of the European social-democrats, for building a society where nobody is excluded and where all citizens have equal chances. I congratulate Mrs. Lynne on the report.

Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PT) The active and energetic defence of non-discrimination is not to be confused with relativisation in which everything is equal, everything is equivalent and all choices, options or circumstances have equal value in the legal order. For example, the promotion of policies protecting larger families in no way constitutes a breach of the principle of non-discrimination. Just as the refusal to set legal frameworks for all possible forms of relationships between human beings could not be compared to any type of discrimination. What I support, and think it is my duty to support in the field of non-discrimination is, above all, the defence of a broad concept of individual freedom and not a collectivist State view of freedoms, in which only what is promoted by the State is regarded as non-discriminatory. Society may and does have preferences, that find their expression in public policies. It cannot and must not impose conduct or restrict conduct that does not conflict with the freedom of third parties.

Lydia Schenardi (NI), in writing. – (FR) There are currently no less than five directives on equal opportunities and non-discrimination in the European Union. Twenty-eight actions for infringement are in progress against Member States that have not transposed them. This can only be deplored. Nevertheless, should we systematically impose gender equality by force and through repression? I do not think so, quite the contrary. Let us stop stigmatising this discourse on discrimination by classifying minority groups and populations as ‘good’, in particular immigrants, and making Europeans feel guilty as if they were constantly practising discrimination. We need to put an end to these leftist refrains that do not do anything to help people who are being discriminated against, who are on the contrary stigmatised by them. Let us place more emphasis on each person’s personal responsibility to end discrimination of any kind and on the need, especially for immigrants, to adapt to our rules, our laws and our values.

Bernard Wojciechowski (IND/DEM), in writing. − (PL) Discrimination, both indirect and direct, with regard to gender, age or disability, is still with us in Europe. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 63

The Internet portal Pracuj.pl ran a questionnaire among people in work and seeking work, employers, students and graduates. According to the questionnaire, the social groups most discriminated against in the labour market are the over-50s and disabled people. The most common manifestation of discrimination in the labour market is employers being guided by prejudices and stereotypes when selecting a candidate for a job – nearly 62% of respondents saw that as a major problem. After that we have unequal access to job offers/lack of suitable job offers (56%), unwillingness to provide employment for an undefined period/on a work contract (44%) and lower-than-average pay for the particular environment or industry (43%). My view is that an anti-discrimination policy, as one of the fundamental principles of the EU, has a very definite task to perform in this sphere.

− Report: Willi Piecyk (A6-0163/2008)

Jan Andersson, Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Inger Segelström and Åsa Westlund (PSE), in writing. − (SV) We have chosen to vote for this own-initiative report since it contains several worthwhile considerations relating to the creation of a system for the sustainable ecological and economic management of the EU’s marine environments. We have also chosen to support the idea of a European Maritime Day. There is reason for scepticism over grand campaigns launched by EU institutions, but in this case we chose to support the idea since the environmental situation in the seas is a matter of urgency.

However, we think that the report contains passages which can be interpreted as being too favourably disposed to commercial fishing. The fishing fleets in the EU currently suffer from overcapacity and need to be reduced for the sake of the declining fish stocks. It is wrong to guarantee commercial fishermen jobs in fishing. Active vocational training projects are among many measures which can be applied to assist workers and regions which are dependent on the fishing industry.

Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the own-initiative report by my German fellow Member Mr Piecyk on an Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union, drawn up in response to a Communication from the Commission on the same subject. The maritime areas (two oceans – the Atlantic and the Arctic – and four seas – the Baltic, the North Sea, the Mediterranean and the Black Sea) and the coastline (70 000 km) of Europe are essential to its well-being and prosperity; they are the trade routes, the climate regulators, sources of food, energy and resources, and popular places to live and for leisure among Europeans. I would like to add that they are a reservoir of water, which will be a rare commodity. In a context of globalisation and rapid climate change, there is an urgent need to act by establishing an Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union, based on the acknowledgement that all the issues relating to Europe’s oceans and seas are linked to each other. Maritime surveillance, which is essential for ensuring safety and security in the use of maritime spaces, maritime space development, which is an essential planning instrument for making ecologically viable decisions and a complete and accessible source of data and information, are very interesting paths to follow.

Alessandro Battilocchio (PSE), in writing. – (IT) Europe, partly because of its strategic geographical location, must set an international example in its maritime policy, harnessing the economic potential of the oceans and seas as an invaluable source of renewable energy. Similarly, setting up regional centres of excellence and providing encouragement and support for university research centres already in coastal areas, accompanied by an action plan based on innovation, research and environmental protection of oceans and seas, would represent a further step forward towards fully sustainable use of marine resources. The report also suggests that the action plan must make an important contribution towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions through the use of fair emissions trading systems, by consolidating research into the oceans and seas as a renewable energy source and by introducing equal tax treatment of electricity and marine fuels. This would mean that, when docked, ships would be encouraged to use a land-based electricity supply. Finally, the proposal for coordination between the European agencies responsible for maritime surveillance would discourage and prevent attacks on European vessels and at the same time combat illegal activities such as smuggling, drug and human trafficking, thereby rendering international waters decidedly safer. 64 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

Adam Bielan (UEN), in writing. − (PL) Given the opportunity to discuss Mr Piecyk’s report on an integrated maritime policy for the European Union, I would like to draw attention to implementation of the Water Framework Directive, which envisages action aimed at the identification and disposal of chemical weapons left behind in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea after World War II. I am referring to the plans surrounding the NordStream pipeline, the construction of which may disturb weaponry dating back to World War II that is lying on the bottom of the Baltic Sea. According to preliminary estimates, there are somewhere between 40 000 and 60 000 tonnes of chemical ammunition, of which about 12 000-13 000 tonnes are poisonous combat material. We do not even have detailed information on the location of a large part of this weaponry, so the risk of a disaster is enormous. Moreover, when the pipeline is commissioned, chemicals may be used that are harmful to the environment. This may lead to an environmental disaster with very serious consequences. This constitutes a direct threat to the life and health of people living on the shores of the Baltic Sea. The report mentions bringing about a situation in which ‘Europe’s oceans and seas will be the cleanest in the world’. I am therefore appealing for the European Union to take specific action on an integrated maritime policy and to ban the construction of projects that threaten the safety of European residents.

Ole Christensen, Dan Jørgensen, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, Christel Schaldemose and Britta Thomsen (PSE), in writing. − (DA) Shipping must be included in CO2 quota trading. The socialist delegation is working to have shipping traffic included in the CO2 quota trading system. Although this mode of transport is particularly environmentally friendly compared with most modes of goods transport, shipping accounts for very significant CO2 emissions that clearly exceed the share from aviation traffic, for example, which is also set to be included in the quota trading system soon.

Today, the delegation has therefore voted in favour of the point in the report on an integrated maritime policy for the European Union that clearly states that we must include shipping in the trading of CO2 emissions. We have therefore discarded an amendment proposal from the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance concerning the same issue. It is unclear whether the Green amendment proposal refers to a specific model for emissions trading. If this is the case, we have had no explanation of what exactly it contains. At present, we therefore do not wish to adopt a particular model, which in the worst case could hamper and delay agreement on the inclusion of CO2 emissions from shipping.

Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. − (SV) We entirely agree with some of the views presented in this report, for example that it is urgent to combat sulphur and nitrogen oxide emissions from ships and that the common fisheries policy is too bureaucratic and centralised. However, most of the proposals put forward are negative. We have trouble seeing what could be gained from the introduction by the EU of a ‘European Maritime Day’. We also question the value of EU financing for maritime research and a plan to survey and map wrecked ships and submerged archaeological sites, and we are critical of the idea that EU institutions should address the subject of maritime spatial planning. The report constitutes a further example of how the European Parliament seeks to gain influence in ever more areas of policy. Respect for the subsidiarity principle, which is often paid lip service but seldom applied, is conspicuous by its absence. We cannot accept that. We have therefore voted against the report in the final vote.

Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We think that a maritime policy based on cooperation between the Member States, that add value and promotes policies and measures linked to the sea set by each country, could have a positive impact. Nevertheless the EP is reaffirming objectives – for the integrated maritime policy – although less strongly than in the previous report, that we cannot agree with. Apart from being imbued with a federalist and geostrategic vision of the use of the exclusive economic zones of each Member State, it advocates the rapid integration of intra-Community maritime transport into the single market, i.e., its liberalisation; it stresses the initiatives aimed at establishing a European coastguard, an area falling within the competence of each Member State; it advocates incorporating shipping into emissions trading – yet more bargaining; and, paradoxically (or perhaps not) it declares itself in favour of maritime policy being given appropriate consideration in the EU budget (?) after 2013; i.e., it is once more advocating centralised EU political and economic authority whilst offering nothing in return (even if that could ever be acceptable). 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 65

Certainly the EP motion for a resolution contains some proposals with which we agree – some of which we tabled – but they do not make up for the negative content of the motion for a resolution. We therefore voted against it.

Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted in favour of the Piecyk Report on the EU's maritime policy. I particularly welcome the section which recognises that the CFP has been an unmitigated disaster and that the EU must learn from its failures in delivering an integrated maritime policy. My own country, Scotland, is at the very heart of Europe in maritime affairs and we can benefit from an EU-wide policy which covers areas as diverse as the environment, transport, tourism and employment. However, recognition must be had for the diversity of Europe's maritime areas and decisions must not be taken on the "one-size-fits-all" basis which has come to represent Europe's failed fisheries policy.

Roselyne Lefrançois (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text because I consider it to be essential for the European Union to equip itself with an Integrated Maritime Policy as quickly as possible. The EU would in fact have a great deal to gain from adopting a coherent strategy for implementing the different sectoral policies that have an impact on the maritime field, such as for example certain social, industrial or environmental policies, and also promoting the establishment of a real ‘mutually supporting system’. I also welcome the will to step up the fight against climate change and pollution through the emergence of real centres of innovation, which will also be a source of competitiveness and social welfare for the coastal regions of the Union. Finally, I support the report’s proposals regarding the security aspect of maritime policy, and in particular the idea of drawing up common rules in this area and sharing surveillance methods within the Community maritime space. This would enable us both to combat maritime piracy, a phenomenon that we have seen the return of in recent years, and to protect the natural heritage and archaeology of these areas in order to prevent any catastrophes that would have disastrous effects on the development of the Union’s coastline.

David Martin (PSE), in writing. − Willi Piecyk’s report ‘An integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union’ addresses the challenges that Europe’s maritime industry now faces. Its recommendations will help facilitate Europe-wide decision-making in the area. It is only in establishing an integrated maritime policy that global issues such as globalisation and climate change and their effects on our oceans can be effectively engaged with. I voted in support of the report.

Luca Romagnoli (NI), in writing. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to express myself in favour of Mr Piecyk’s report on an integrated maritime policy for the European Union. I agree that an integrated maritime policy is necessary not only because the oceans and seas represent one of the most important economic and trading resources for the EU and thus must be protected, but also because effective and sustainable concerted action between the Member States would improve the way in which it is managed and developed. One of the points I consider to b fundamental is that maritime traffic should be regulated and improved in accordance with the objectives for tackling climate change and that the marine resource should be the focus as a potential source of clean, alternative energy.

Catherine Stihler (PSE), in writing. − Our seas are our common resource. We need a coordinated approach against the exploitation and pollution of our seas. We can only do this by working across EU countries which have an interest in maritime policy. I hope that next year more EU citizens will be able to participate in the European Maritime Day. Perhaps, as next year this day will fall during the European Elections, all candidates will use 20 May to highlight maritime policy issues.

10. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

(The sitting was suspended at 12.55 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.) 66 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

IN THE CHAIR: MR MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ Vice-President

11. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes

12. Misleading 'Directory companies' (e.g. 'European City Guides') (debate)

President. − The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Council on misleading directory companies, (e.g. ’European City Guides’), by Arlene McCarthy, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (O-0078/2007 - B6-0152/2008).

Arlene McCarthy, author. − Mr President, the clear objective of this oral question is to get action and redress for the thousands of small businesses across the EU which are being defrauded daily out of millions of euros by sham European ‘directory companies’. This Parliament has received hundreds of petitions and a mass of correspondence to our constituency offices from businesses who have fallen victim to these prolific scams against small businesses. We must, of course, recognise that these scams have been in existence for over 40 years, according to the legitimate directory publishers represented by the EADP. But this is without doubt a scam which requires a European response. As an example, the structure of the Maiwolf holding company, which owns the European City Guide and other such companies, is a complex web of European scam companies registered, operating and domiciled in several Member States of the EU and in the EEA countries and . Despite legal action and fines issued by courts in several Member States, it continues to operate, making a mockery of EU cooperation on law enforcement. Indeed it took seven years through the courts for the company to be shut down in Barcelona, only for it to immediately restart trading in Valencia. Maiwolf Holding is a hub of a web of companies operating scams not just at EU level but at global level and continuing – I am afraid – to escape the long arm of the law. By responding to the European City Guide, businesses were led to believe that they were simply responding to an information request or updating or correcting their data. They were led to believe it was a free service, and then suddenly they found themselves slapped with an invoice for thousands of euros which, if mentioned at all, had only appeared in very fine print in a confusing and misleading manner. The same Maiwolf holding company apparently also owns the debt collection companies which then proceed to harass, bully and threaten businesses to pay up. A website, ‘Stop the European City Guide’, that campaigns against the City Guide fraud, was also subject to legal threats and their ISP had to shut them down, although I am pleased to say that they are currently up and running again. Many of the activities of this fraudulent company are clearly in breach of the Misleading Advertising Directive of 1984. We need better and more coordinated enforcement to close the loopholes or gaps which are exploited by such companies. I can inform the presidency that my committee will review the implementation and transposition of the Misleading Advertising Directive and, of course, the new Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. We are particularly interested in the example of Austria’s transposition of the Misleading Advertising Directive whereby businesses cannot be bound by a contract unless they have clearly and explicitly signed up to its terms and conditions. This is a model, Presidency, which I hope you will follow in discussions with the other Member States. Small businesses, of course, are not helped by the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive as it does not cover business-to-business transactions – even for small businesses. Member States must make better use of the cross-border enforcement network to put these cowboy businesses out of business and out of operation once and for all. I certainly share with my colleagues here the sense of frustration of the many small businesses who for years, not months, have continued to suffer harassment and financial loss. If we believe, as we say we do, that small businesses are the backbone of the EU economy, then it is time to stand up for them, to defend their rights and to defend them against these fraudulent practices. I certainly welcome Commissioner Kuneva’s interest and her commitment to monitoring their activities, but monitoring alone does not get results and does not actively target these companies. It is unacceptable, I believe, that the business complaints have fallen on apparently deaf ears and that the sole trader behind the City Guide has been allowed to continue to peddle his fraudulent practices without facing the full force of European law. So I am calling today on the Member States to urgently take action, to recognise the serious and damaging consequences of allowing this fraudster to continue to rip off our businesses. I want the Member States, and 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 67

indeed the presidency, today during our debate, to commit to taking action, not just to debate the issues we have known about for many years. So I urge the presidency to answer these questions and to work together with us to find a resolution for the businesses who continue to suffer from this fraud.

Janez Lenarčič, President-in-Office of the Council. − (SL) I should like to thank Mrs McCarthy for her question. My thanks go also to the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection. I shall try to answer the question within the framework set by Mrs McCarthy. With regard to the first question, namely what Member States have done to close fraudulent directory services, I must inform you that as yet the Council has not received a proposed solution from the Member States. Similarly, it has not been informed either of action taken by the Member States to close such companies or of the intentions of their competent authorities as regards exchanging data on the companies. With regard to the second question, about taking steps to close the loopholes in transposition of the Misleading Advertising Directive – the European Commission is responsible for this Directive and its implementation, as laid down in Article 211 of the Treaty establishing the European Community. So in my opinion, the European Parliament should address this question to the European Commission. In connection with these two questions, I should also add that as yet the Council has not been informed of what action the Member States have initiated to make the business world aware of the risk constituted by fraudulent directory services.

With regard to the issue of extending the scope of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, I can, however, confirm to Mrs McCarthy that this Directive does not cover the cases described by the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection. In other words, it does not cover cases of fraudulent commercial practices targeting small and medium-sized enterprises. The reason for this is that the scope of application of the Directive concerned is restricted to business-to-consumer relations. With regard to the possible extension of this Directive to business-to-business relations, I can only say that the Council will adopt a position on this issue as soon as an appropriate legislative proposal is put before it. I should, however, remind you that the Council has already debated the issue of whether the relevant Directive should also cover business-to-business practices, at the time when the Directive was adopted. I should remind you that in addition to the Commission, most Member States also rejected the idea of extending the Directive to cover unfair commercial practices that do not harm the consumer. Irrespective of this, however, I must emphasise that companies, including small and medium-sized enterprises, are not without protection against such practices. They are protected by the Misleading Advertising Directive. I should like to end by explicitly agreeing, on behalf of the Presidency, with the Committee’s view that unfair and fraudulent business practices are unacceptable in any economic area. I also believe that action needs to be taken against such conduct. The Member States deal with unfair business practices as stipulated by their legislation. The example of the European City Guide, which you mentioned in your question, has also been brought before the courts in at least one Member State. I should like to thank you again for your question, and I shall in any case listen attentively to the debate.

Simon Busuttil, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (MT) Mr President, when you open this directory – because this is a big, thick publication – you find hundreds of pages, with thousands of companies, very often small businesses that found themselves in this directory after being cheated. They did not want to be included in it, but were included against their wishes. Parliament’s Committee on Petitions has received about 400 petitions from small businesses caught in this trap. I believe there are three aspects to this issue. Firstly, the small businesses involved are the victims of fraud. Secondly, there is a cross-border, transnational aspect, which should therefore be of interest to us in Europe, in the European Parliament, in the Council and in the Commission. Thirdly, companies like ‘European City Guides’ are profiting from shortcomings that exist in legislation. What is the European Parliament doing, besides what the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection is doing, as Mrs McCarthy has told us? The Committee on Petitions will be producing a report on 68 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

this issue. I will be the rapporteur, and my report will have four aims. Firstly, it will aim to increase awareness of this problem, which is a big one. Secondly, it will continue to encourage the Council and the Commission, in particular, to take clear action, because if they cannot take action today, they need to be in a position to do so. Thirdly, we also need to determine whether there are legislative shortcomings, and this is the role of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. Lastly, it also needs to offer these victims useful advice. The Committee on Petitions will hold consultations and meet with the victims and social partners, as well as with the Commission, before adopting this report, which is expected to be adopted by the end of this year.

Genowefa Grabowska, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (PL) Mr President, the activities of companies that carry on dishonest commercial and marketing practices are worthy only of condemnation. We must surely protect consumers’ rights against such pseudo-market actions and support them in their battle against companies that, in the current European reality, see themselves as completely beyond punishment. Thousands of companies throughout Europe are taken in by allegedly free advertising in business catalogues, for which they are in reality required to pay anything from a few hundred to a few thousand euros. The publishers of these worthless catalogues – from a business as well as an advertising point of view – not only target specific industries, such as tourist agencies, hoteliers, doctors, restaurateurs and even the world of science, but also, unfortunately, approach state agencies and institutions. This is why EU citizens are asking how it is that the originators of such practices, who have after all been identified by their first name and surname as the proprietors of the companies publishing these catalogues, have been able to make a fortune using fraudulent and dishonest practices profiting from the fears of small European businessmen in the face of vindicatory companies and courts.

I am consequently asking the Slovenian Presidency – and I am addressing the Presidency more than the Commission – to instigate coordination of action by Member States, mainly in the sphere of exchange of information and mutual warning against this type of fraudulent practice, to send out information concerning the owners and the boards of these companies, and also to propose the introduction of stricter penal sanctions for this type of activity. Continuation of the current situation will undermine the faith of businesses and citizens of the European Union in the idea of a European common market and will also, unfortunately, erode the differences between honest businessmen and quasi-Mafia activities.

Diana Wallis, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, many thanks to Mrs McCarthy and the Internal Market Committee for presenting this question. I could wish that we had had a rather more robust answer from the Council, I have to say. The situation is absolutely unacceptable and I am going to start by making a confession. In the early 1980s, I was a lawyer in the UK, but I founded a practice with a lawyer in Germany. We started getting these demands that we had advertised our practice in a European City Guide and, even as a lawyers, we felt harassed and frightened. So if lawyers feel frightened by these people, I am sure ordinary small SMEs must. But the oddity of this is that EU law ought to be able to provide an answer and it is seemingly failing to do so, even after 20, 30 years that this has been going on. Indeed, if you read some of the letters from these people, they are even quoting EU law back at people to harass them even further as victims. And what do we get from the Council? I am sorry, it is not good enough: well, we might look at misleading advertising and we will think about it. Thirty years on we really need something more. What are people meant to do? We need a thoroughgoing debate about whether we should redefine who and what is a consumer. We tried to raise it during the discussions on contract law. We need to go further and deeper if we are going to deal with this problem. Lastly, if the Member States are too timid or too frightened to deal with this, let me make another suggestion that perhaps is a little contentious here. If the Commission gives us a substantial system of collective redress, let us call it class actions, then maybe citizens will be able to take action themselves if nobody else will do it for them. Now there is a thought.

Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – Mr President, four years later we are at last having a debate on the European City Guides. I could not carry down the files of complaints I have, as other colleagues have outlined. Europe gets beaten about because it does not connect with its citizens and here we have a golden opportunity – and I direct this to the Council – to connect with people who have a real problem and who are coming to their MEPs for a solution. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 69

It is not just businesses that are affected. I have heard from school secretaries who signed this in error and are terrified and who have paid over money. The tragedy with European City Guides is that it works because people are threatened and terrified. Whether you pay or not, they continue to harass and abuse people. But it is a European problem and therefore requires a European solution. I suppose I am celebrating slightly that we are having this debate and that my colleague, Simon Busuttil, is going to have a report and prepare information, but I think the Council needs to be a little more proactive on this, and indeed the Commission likewise. The question is very specific and it raises five key issues that need to be addressed. In my view, this problem is enormous but we need to have it quantified. Exchanging information is a great idea but it could cause frustration if we do not have action as a result. We must close loopholes. For example, in Ireland, European law is being quoted to those who have signed up to European City Guides. They are being told that they will be taken to court in another Member State and fined and penalised. They are getting phone calls with huge amounts of harassment to themselves and their co-workers. This is not acceptable. We definitely need to redefine what a consumer is because, as I said earlier, this is not just about business. But I repeat the point. We have a golden opportunity here to show people all over Europe that we are active on issues that are hitting them directly. Let us seize the moment and let us not waste it today with just words and no action.

Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Mr President, the power of many of these fraudulent directory companies is that they are in another Member State, so they seem untouchable unless in some way the EU intervenes. They also instil fear in people, many of them very small businesses without any legal help or advice and many, after being harassed for years, eventually give up and pay the money.

Like many of the other speakers, my office has been inundated with complaints, but usually from sole traders: plumbers, dentists, doctors, people who have been targeted by European City Guide. These people feel as if they are on their own, that they have just made a bad decision, that they got caught out and in some way they almost blame themselves. I find it unbelievable when I hear that the majority of Member States do not want any extension of the Directive to do something about the relations between companies. I just wonder, is it because the companies that are being targeted are small businesses, that it is not the big corporations that are being affected? I believe citizens need more and better from the Council and the Commission than they are getting at present. I think the current situation is not good enough and I call on the Council to do something about it immediately.

Malcolm Harbour (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I want to get straight to the point. Let me address this to the Slovenian Presidency; I think they have been great in their presidency. Minister Lenarčič, just let me give you four things that I would like you to bring up at your next meeting of the Competitiveness Ministers. The first thing, is for you to ask the Commission to take the SOLVIT mechanism – which is supposed to deal with every single internal market complaint, not just market-related ones – and put this firmly on the agenda. Get them to circulate the information that is already available on independent websites – and we should be ashamed of the fact that it is actually the people affected by this who have taken this up on their own – there is a lot of comprehensive information, and make that part of their remit. That could happen straight away. So that is your first task. The second task is that you should be saying to all your colleagues that their business information services (because they have services that reach out to SMEs) should also be circulating that information to them in their own languages and you should be putting just a modest amount of your budget behind to actually explain to businesses what is going on. Thirdly, give those to your law enforcement authorities. And, also say to the Commission and to the people who are running your consumer protection cooperation: put this on your agenda. It will not take very much to do. The information is there. It is not a difficult thing to do. So that is three things you should do. And the fourth thing you could do as well is to say to your colleagues this: these practices, if practised on individual consumers are absolutely illegal under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. Everybody knows that is the case. And the companies affected are essentially taking on the role of private consumers. But, in individual Member States, in your process of implementing that (and I have to say by the way the Member States have not done very well in implementing it, and even my own Member State is actually well behind), you could easily include a clause specifically including directories and small businesses in your implementation. It would not take much to do. 70 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

So there are four specific actions there. So I look to you, Minister, and we will look at the agenda, and we expect it to be on the next agenda of the Competitiveness Council. How can we go round saying to small businesses, ‘participate in the internal market’, if we cannot even give them the simplest of safeguards on a simple act like this? It is a disgraceful neglect by all of us of our duties in the single market.

Richard Corbett (PSE). – Mr President, the European City Guide and the similar guides are essentially a bunch of crooks, but our legislation has not been good enough to enable us to deal with them. This question should equally have been asked of the Commission in terms of initiating a new legislative proposal to tighten up the relevant legislation so that we can deal with them, but pending that my advice to any small business faced with demands from European City Guide and similar guides is simple: do not pay; ignore them; ignore the pressure. An organisation has been set up called ‘Stop the European City Guide’, an association of victims of this guide. Their website had to be removed because of pressure and legal threats against their internet service provider to make them shut down their website. I now therefore host their website on my website so that they can continue to disseminate information as to how businesses can protect themselves. We need firm action on this. We need it soon.

Marcin Libicki (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, may I congratulate Mrs McCarthy on an excellently prepared oral question on the subject of the dishonest practices of advertising companies based on ‘European City Guides’. The Committee on Petitions, which I chair, has appointed Mr Busuttil to draw up a report on this matter. We have received an enormous number of petitions complaining about precisely this practice. The Commissioner said that the Commission has not received such complaints that might spur it on to launch an investigation into this matter but, the way I see it, this debate, along with the debate to be held on the basis of Mr Busuttil’s report, will serve as an adequate reason for the Commission to take action in this matter, as these practices are hugely dishonest and harass small business and ordinary people – in other words, people who do not have armies of lawyers at their disposal to protect them. I urge the Commission to take action in this matter.

Brian Crowley (UEN). – Mr President, I have dealt with 19 cases of people who have been fraudulently exposed to expenditure and to debt actions because of European City Guides. Of those 19, 17 were small businesses that employed three people or less. And of those 17, six of them were elderly people over the age of 60 who were afraid of seeing a solicitor’s letter coming in the door. The reality was that what actually happened here was a misrepresentation under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act or the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, as Mr Harbour was talking about. That in itself is a fraud because, if you agree to do something, you expect to get something in return that should be offered in consideration. What actually happened was a misrepresentation as regards the service that was being provided. I think, as some of my colleagues have said, this is probably a matter best dealt with at Commission level. However, it would be right that the Competitive Council and each Minister be made aware of it, and would be empowered to introduce legislation at a national level which may be quicker to do than to actually try and bring forward a revised European directive on this matter.

Arlene McCarthy (PSE). – Mr President, I just want to echo my colleagues. We have to stop passing the buck on this issue. We must stop allowing these companies to ‘catch me if you can’. That is the game they are playing with this. I am not leaving the plenary, Minister, without some commitment to action. Mr Harbour gave you some ideas, but what I want you to do is to raise specific things that I did actually raise in my intervention at the beginning. I want you to raise at the Council working group the Austrian model where, under the Misleading Advertising Directive, they already ban these practices. Not all Member States do it. You could ask other Member States to follow suit, take the Austrian model and ban these practices by introducing amendments in their national legislation. I also want you to ask the Council to agree that we have cross-border enforcement networks for consumers. I want you to instruct them to accept, investigate and act on the directory companies in the context of the cross-border enforcement network. That, I believe, will enable us to have some action across the border and to stop these people escaping the long arm of the law. So, please, if I could have that from you, I think we can all go away somewhat happier.

Janez Lenarčič, President-in-Office of the Council. − (SL) Thank you very much, Mr President, for allowing me to speak. I should also like to thank all our colleagues who have taken part in the debate. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 71

Let me start by making one thing clear. Nobody in the Council, neither the Presidency nor any Member State, supports the continuation, or even the occurrence, of fraudulent conduct in the internal market constituted by the European Union. Quite the reverse, and that is why this debate is so welcome, and why I personally welcome it on behalf of the Presidency. Secondly, I can assure you that the Presidency has taken note of the unanimous demands for increased activity and immediate action. You can rely on us to pass these demands on to our partners in the Council. Thirdly, I am delighted that the Committee on Petitions has decided to prepare a special report, and we look forward with pleasure to this report by Mr Busuttil. This should generate additional impetus for appropriate activities at European level. However, I should like to emphasise one thing. Mrs McCarthy, you mentioned the example set by Austria. Good examples certainly serve to encourage others to follow them. And I also believe and hope that this debate will play a part in this. I must stress, however, that the Commission is responsible for transposition of the directives. As has already been mentioned, and as you also thought in your question, this issue involves two directives. The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive does not cover this segment. One solution would be either to redefine the concept of the consumer or to extend the scope of application of the Directive. I expect both these options to be on the table when a decision is taken on these matters. We are aware that the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive has not been in place for long. It has only been in force since December, and I think we shall soon have to assess how it is being applied. Secondly, I wish to stress again that the Misleading Advertising Directive covers this area. Swindles and fraud of this kind definitely involve misleading advertising, which means that certain legal remedies are already available. Finally, let me stress again that I have followed the debate very attentively, and that the Presidency will convey the mood of this plenary to Council members.

President. − The debate is closed. Written statements (Rule 142)

James Nicholson (PPE-DE), in writing. – The 'European Cities Guide' and similar outfits are fraudulent operations which specifically target SMEs. They urge companies to sign up to directory services which are presented as being free of charge. However, due to dubious and complex 'fine print', theses schemes then proceed to harass people for money in an extremely threatening and malicious manner. Ironically, these fraudulent companies quote EU law in order to intimidate their targets further. Of course, these scams represent no value whatsoever to the consumer or businesses. In fact, they flout numerous examples of EU legislation, such as the 1984 Directive on Misleading Advertising. This problem is evident in countries throughout the EU and therefore requires urgent action. The solution lies in EU level cooperation, namely in the form of some tough legislation. We must ensure that any EU directive tackling this issue contains no loopholes and that it is satisfactorily implemented in all member states. I call on the Council and Commission to assist the work of Parliament and take action which reflects the urgency of this situation. If we are encouraging our SMEs to compete within the single market, we must at least be able to guarantee their protection against these appalling scams.

13. Conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator - International carriage of passengers by coach and bus (recast) - International carriage of goods by road (recast) (debate)

President. − The next item is the joint debate on the following reports: 72 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

- (A6-0087/2008) by Mrs Ţicău, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator (COM(2007)0263 - C6-0145/2007 - 2007/0098(COD)); - (A6-0037/2008) by Mr Grosch, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for access to the market for coach and bus services (recast) (COM(2007)0264 - C6-0147/2007 - 2007/0097(COD));

and - (A6-0038/2008) by Mr Grosch, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for access to the international road haulage market (recast) (COM(2007)0265 - C6-0146/2007 - 2007/0099(COD)).

Radovan Žerjav, President-in-Office of the Council. − (SL) Mrs Ţicău, Mr Grosch, ladies and gentlemen, the European Commission published draft legislative instruments in July 2007. These were the proposal for a regulation on common rules for admission to the occupation of road transport operator, the proposal for a regulation on common rules for access to the international road haulage market, and the proposal for a regulation on common rules for access to the market for transport services by coach and bus. The Portuguese Presidency began work on the regulation on common rules for access to the international road haulage market, and the Slovenian Presidency continued this work and also opened the other two dossiers. In parallel with the work in the working group, we also began informal talks with rapporteurs in the European Parliament. At the April meeting of the Transport, Telecommunications and Energy (TTE) Council, ministers conducted a political debate based on a package with the main issues, with the following results. Firstly, with regard to the regulation on common rules for access to the international road haulage market, the key question of cabotage remains unanswered. Most Member States essentially supported the compromise decision under which three cabotage trips are permissible within seven days after unloading in the host Member State. However, quite a lot of Member States, who were also supported by the Commission, called for transit cabotage also to be made possible, to avoid empty road traffic. The Presidency is currently endeavouring to find a compromise solution in the Council. Secondly, with regard to the regulation on admission to the occupation, a compromise needs to be found on the national electronic register and the register of transport undertakings. In fact we shall soon be agreed on the timetable for establishing this register. Thirdly, with regard to the regulation on international coach and bus services, the debate needs to be continued at working-group level. We have agreed that the solutions in the other two regulations should also be applied analogously in this regulation. The Slovenian Presidency will be endeavouring to achieve political agreement on these three proposed regulations in the TTE meeting on 13 June 2008. I wish to emphasise that we shall try to take your requested amendments into consideration as far as possible and thus, to a great extent, bring our points of view into line with one another. The Slovenian Presidency wishes to help to consolidate and complete the single market. I am convinced that the fast-growing road transport sector constitutes one of the foundations of the single market for the free movement of goods and passenger transport, and that the Community’s legal regime needs to be modernised, in order to be made more efficient, to have greater control, and to ensure honest competition. The Slovenian Presidency unreservedly supports the aims set out in the proposals for the three regulations. I should like to emphasise that the Slovenian Presidency is aware of the existing restrictions in the European Union’s transport market, which means that it sees its task as lying not only in strengthening the rules and control mechanisms for cabotage, but also in introducing uniform rules for access to the occupation. The electronic registers in particular will help to improve efficiency and transparency in the transport sector and to effect a substantial reduction in the administrative burden. Lastly, I must thank MEPs and, in particular, the rapporteurs Mr Grosch and Mrs Ţicău for the constructive exchange of views. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 73

Let me say again that the Slovenian Presidency will do everything in its power to achieve a balance between the various interests, and also to ensure that the solutions we accept will make the European road transport industry more efficient and more competitive. At this point, I should like to say that it is my hope and wish that we shall continue the constructive dialogue, and that the European Parliament will achieve a consensus as soon as possible.

Leonard Orban, Member of the Commission. − (RO) Regulations regarding access to the international road passenger and freight transport market, together with the Regulation regarding access to the profession of road operator form a package. These subjects are inextricably connected. I am very pleased to see these three texts subject to a vote today in order to establish your position at a first reading. I thank your Rapporteurs, Mrs. Ţicău and Mr. Grosch, for their work, as well as all the members who have contributed to it. A rapid agreement is necessary for the following reasons: the European Council of March 2007 expressed its wish in this respect; the sector in question, more than 900,000 enterprises, wants to harmonise the conditions for access to the profession in order to have a loyal competition and clear rules regarding this restricted but delicate problem, namely cabotage. 15 years after the first regulations regarding access to road transport, the market continues to be fragmented, with 27 national versions of rules as regards the control of access to the profession and the definition of the good repute required for this access. I will also remind you, one more time, of the divergent interpretations of the notion “temporary” as regards cabotage. Consequently, it was about time to stimulate the progress in integrating the internal market in the field of road transportation. A rapid agreement is possible. I have the feeling that the Council’s and your positions can be directed even more toward a common point. With the help of the Slovenian and the French Presidency, I believe it is possible to reach an agreement soon. I can assure you of my support, at least in principle, regarding most of the amendments proposed by the Committee on Transport and Tourism. Since the detailed position of the Commission regarding each amendment submitted has already been transmitted to the relevant Parliament service, my reserves or observations will focus only on a few matters. The first one, the matter of the cabotage, seems to be a major item of this package. Yet, no solution will be good unless it is controllable. The essential quality of the Commission’s proposal is precisely the clarity, simplicity and controllability of the mechanism introduced: three operations within the seven days following an international transport. This relation to an international transport is generally recognized and, exactly for this reason, I understand the interest raised by amendment 17 of the Grosch report, which provides the performance of cabotage operations in a transit country on the shortest way back. Nevertheless, the proposed formulation makes the amendment difficult to control – and I cannot support it for this reason. On the other hand, in order to avoid empty races, I believe we could control a provision saying that one of the three operations within seven days can be performed in a transit country within a maximum of three days. I would have no trouble with supporting an amendment in this respect. It is the same with amendments 18, 37, 40, 44 and 47, which provide that restrictions regarding the number and duration of cabotage operations shall be eliminated gradually, until their complete elimination in 2014. We have to take into consideration the market reality in various Member States. The fiscal, social, and salary conditions are still very disparate due to the absence of sufficient harmonization and I am afraid they will remain the same in 2014 as well. The proposed package will certainly contribute to this harmonization as regards the control of access to the profession but it could not guarantee a sufficient degree of harmonization by itself. Under these circumstances, an automatic liberalization of cabotage would result in a deformation, and not a consolidation of competition conditions. Therefore, a clause of subsequent review of this matter seems more appropriate to me. I mention that, until this review, it goes without saying that the regulation does not prevent Member States in any way from completely opening their cabotage markets provided that they do this without any discrimination against the other Member States or under agreements between the national governments prior to the Community rules in force regarding market access. Amendment 21, as formulated, omits these specifications and, consequently, cannot be supported by the Commission. As regards access to the profession, the aspect of good repute and serious infringements of the law is essential. I believe the procedure you propose, regarding the withdrawal of good repute in case of a serious infringement of the law, has a great dissuasive power, still remaining appropriate. I welcome in particular amendment 104 of Mrs. Ţicău’s report, which provides a very clear list of these infringements. Therefore, we can support the Parliament’s proposal as regards article 6. The European Companies Register has a special importance in guaranteeing the control of good repute. In this respect, in principle, we support 74 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

amendments 70, from 72 to 78 and 114, which provide for a rapid and progressive introduction of interconnected national registers. Lastly, the draft regulation allows small businesses to resort to so-called external administrators. In other words, they are administrators who do not work directly in these small businesses. Amendment 27 does not establish limits for this possibility which, in my opinion, should remain an exception and not become a rule. Therefore, I cannot support it. Yet, I could support amendment 109, which provides for a reasonable limit of 50 vehicles. Finally, as regards the issue of the 12 days, I remember the former amendment 102 in Mrs. Ţicău’s report, which refers to the reintroduction of the so-called 12-day derogation in the case of coaches. I agree with the plenary session’s choice to vote this amendment in Mr. Grosch’s report regarding buses. The Commission has not adopted a position on the content for the moment. At present, the social partners are working on this subject and we have to wait for the result of the first exchanges in order not to legislate in a hurry. A more detailed re-examination of this matter will be necessary as soon as an agreement is reached between these partners, yet without slowing down the progress in reaching an agreement on cabotage and the register.

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău, Rapporteur. − (RO) I would like to begin by thanking the Commission, the Council, the Co-Rapporteurs, in particular Mr. Grosch, Mr. Sterckx, Mrs. Lichtenberger and all the colleagues I worked with in making this report. The Proposal for Regulation regarding access to the occupation of road transport operator is important because it concerns 4.5 million employees in the field of road transportation and over 900,000 European companies. We tried to have consultations that were as comprehensive as possible with those operating in this field and for this purpose the TRAN Committee organized a public debate last October in order to gather as many opinions as possible regarding the proposal for regulation. The Regulation replaces Directive 96/26, which was implemented differently by Member States. The Proposal for Regulation establishes common criteria according to which a company has access to the occupation of road transport operator, a stable headquarters, management from an operational centre, access to a sufficient number of parking spaces, criteria to prove the financial standing, good repute, the transport manager’s role and the conditions he/she should meet, and here I refer to the certificate of professional competence and good repute, as well as the Member States’ obligation to create national electronic registers to be interconnected. 193 amendments were submitted to the TRAN Committee, which have brought changes to the Commission’s proposal. Thus, the Parliament, the TRAN Committee opted for a text that refers only to severe and very severe infringements, the latter being well-defined in a new appendix to the Regulation and, for the severe infringements, the Commission shall come up with a list of infringements whose repetitive nature can result in losing the road carrier licence. This list will be approved by the procedure of control regulation. As regards the national electronic registers to be interconnected by 1 January 2012, they will be developed starting from a minimum common structure, which shall be presented by the Commission by 1 January 2010. The electronic registers will have a public section and a confidential section. The public section shall contain data on the road transport operators and road transport managers and the confidential section shall contain data on the infringements committed or the sanctions enforced and shall be accessed only by relevant authorities, in compliance with the provisions regarding the protection of personal data. I emphasize the fact that these confidential data can be kept in separate registers. As to obtaining the certificate of professional competence, the TRAN Committee opted for eliminating a fixed number of training hours and replacing them with the obligation of a written examination followed by an oral examination as well, according to the decision of each Member State. Another amendment proposed stipulates that a transport manager shall be sanctioned only for the facts imputable to him. Thus, any sanction decision can be disputed and the recording of sanctions in the electronic register will be made only after a final decision in this respect. The TRAN Committee considered it was sufficient for a company to prove its financial capacity based on the annual accounts examined by an auditor or a properly accredited person, based on a bank guarantee or another financial instrument, for instance insurance. Therefore, the minimum 80% limit for immediate available funds was eliminated in favour of a minimum threshold for capital and reserves. The TRAN Committee also considers it important that the euro value be established every year and not every 5 years, as provided in the Commission’s proposal. We also proposed the elimination of article 22 from the Commission’s proposal, which established certain rights of priority differently for various Member States and amendment 52 was introduced, which allows people who prove that over the last 10 years prior to the effective date of the regulation they continuously administered the road transport activity to be exempted from examination. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 75

We proposed to limit the number of vehicles administered by an external manager to 50, and the number of companies to 4. As regards the internal transport manager, the socialist group proposes to limit the number of vehicles directly administered by a transport manager to 250. We believe this is necessary because the transport manager should also have decent working conditions. Two amendments regarding the 12-day derogation in relation to the rest period of coach drivers for international passenger transport were also submitted in the TRAN Committee. An agreement between employers and trade unions is expected in this respect and, for this reason, the two amendments will be submitted again in Mr. Grosch’s report.

Mathieu Grosch, rapporteur. − (DE) Mr President, I should also like to thank the rapporteur, the shadow rapporteur, the Council and the Commission for their effective cooperation. I believe we have been trying to create a complete package in order to maintain a certain coherence between the three reports. At first glance I would say that Parliament to some extent leads the way. We were perhaps hoping to have achieved a result already in an unofficial trialogue. However, Parliament can now point the way. I am convinced that the Council can very usefully take on much of what has been debated here and will be agreed. The transport manager, as just stated, plays an important role in access to jobs. I believe it is important that we shall know tomorrow how enterprises are structured in an international sector such as this, who takes responsibility there on the one hand in terms of finances and reliability, but also on the other hand in terms of the important regulations on transport. If we are working at international level tomorrow, it is important to know how partners are structured and that we can rely on them.

We have tried to organise this as simply and transparently as possible in administrative terms. We are, however, very much counting on the Council’s cooperation because the information network we want to create must be transparent, efficient as well as readily available. Any kind of delay here is unnecessary in our view, because progress on this can be very quick thanks to today’s information technology. The preconditions for jobs are also clear. We do not want any special conditions for people who already have work experience and have proved they are reliable. We would, however, like this also to remain verifiable at regular intervals. In terms of market access, transport by bus is somewhat easier. We have also sought coherence there with access to jobs. We in Parliament have set our priorities on focusing for the time being on serious offences. An exchange of information on minor offences between countries in future was really not what we were after. If we have good information available on serious offences, we are already a major step ahead. In our view existing treaties should not be jeopardised. In addition, we believe public urban transport is already protected by its own regulations and it is incumbent upon the Member States to check whether or not problems are occurring there. The 12-day regulation is already the subject of debate here, of course, and as has just been mentioned, Parliament had already requested this 12-day regulation before, but it was not resolved under the British Presidency at the time. Parliament has always spoken out clearly on this because we are not just market-oriented. We have also been considering safety criteria and we wanted to take this subject up once again. I hope that this Parliament will find the right time as well as the correct formula for adopting this subject. Finally, access to road haulage: the famous concept of cabotage is, of course, enormously important here. In simple terms it is ultimately about somehow regulating what is referred to as the Services Directive in the transport sector. How should I, if I come from a third country, provide services in another country? Should I be doing this indefinitely? Should I be doing this under just any conditions? This is ultimately the key question. We are not talking about large transport companies here, but about smaller enterprises. On the one hand we are accommodating the environmental aspect by wanting to avoid empty runs, but on the other hand we should not – being well aware that the social as well as the fiscal conditions differ greatly from country to country at the present time – be encouraging direct dumping in these two sectors either with this regulation.

Limiting cabotage operations to three a week is at least in my view a clear statement. This is much better than the term ‘temporary’, which would virtually have meant 27 countries having 27 different legislatures in the next few years, which would definitely not have been beneficial for the sector. I believe the regulation is clear. The fact that this now has to be completed within a reasonable time is, in our view – I am now speaking for myself – plain sailing insofar as the differences in terms of wages and taxes are being abolished. 76 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

We have also been examining cabotage rather more realistically and this means we are already able to start after the first unloading. Unlike the Commission, I am of the opinion that cabotage must be possible on an international journey as well as on the return journey. We therefore also want some coherence in market access in terms of serious offences and information about them, just as we also want to simplify the administrative procedures. Finally, an appeal once again to the countries themselves. With these regulations, as we have been debating and adopting them here today – particularly with regard to cabotage – there is little sense in going into too much detail when the countries as a whole are not being given the necessary funds to carry out accurate monitoring of these cabotage journeys. There is not a vast amount of work. In our view it entails eventually harmonising the management documents on the one hand, and on the other hand getting to a point where total cabotage expenditure of 2% is properly monitored at European level; for certain countries, however, this does mean 30-40% of the work in this sector. I believe that only then will what we are doing here make sense. Certain details, which we disregard, will then make sense, too.

Georg Jarzembowski, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to congratulate both rapporteurs on behalf of my group: firstly Mrs Ţicău, and secondly my colleague Mr Grosch. They have done very good work: they have attempted to bring together the various conflicting opinions within the Committee on Transport and Tourism. Our group supports in principle the Commission’s proposed new regulations for conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and for access to the market for coach and bus services and access to the international road haulage market. However, our amendments call for further steps towards harmonisation and liberalisation. May I point out that we are still aiming towards the idea of the European internal market, which was actually supposed to be introduced in 1958. The Council has long been reluctant, but the European Court of Justice said in 1985 that we must also establish the European internal market in the transport market, so we must become a little bolder in this respect. A brief comment on the topic of licence to pursue an occupation. The demand that the Commission develop an integrated register of infringements of road transport legislation by 2010 is very important because Member States must be able to decide on the withdrawal of licences, for example, according to unified criteria. We must consider not only licensing, but also withdrawal of that licence. If we want to eliminate the black sheep, we must decide on the matter of withdrawal of licences according to unified criteria and, in this respect, I hope that the Commission will undertake to produce a unified register by 2010. With regard to access to the market for coach and bus services, I believe that we ought finally to make the internal market a reality, step by step. Therefore, I hope that the Commission will support us in making it no longer necessary to obtain authorisation from another Member State for cross-border regular services not extending more than 50 km beyond the border. This is nothing less than protectionism rearing its head. With regard to access to the international road haulage market, we must stop cabotage at some point. It makes no sense in a common internal market. The point of a common internal market is that every business must be able to offer its services in every part of the Community. For environmental reasons, I would say to Mrs Lichtenberger that if I want pointless return trips to stop, then I must find a sensible way of making it possible for providers to undertake trips within other countries. Do not come to me with conditions! We are talking about doing away with cabotage in 2014. There are still six years to go. If we cannot manage to harmonise the conditions to some extent in six years, then we will never manage it, and you will still be promoting cabotage regulations in the year 3000. I am familiar with these sorts of stories from Hamburg, because we always thought that our neighbours outside of Hamburg would pay incredibly low wages. We must see to it that we create an internal market. My most important point is the issue of the 12-day rule. Here we must simply draw clear lines. We need the 12-day rule for occasional cross-border coach services. It is not helpful when the operators and the unions now say: ‘We are about to reach an agreement.’ We must make a statutory ruling. We must pave the way for revision of driving and rest times. I am more than willing to discuss details of implementation with the unions and operators later but it is for Parliament to legislate the provisions on driving and rest times. We have clear proposals, which were supported by a majority in committee, and I would ask you to vote accordingly tomorrow. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 77

IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTA Vice-President

Willi Piecyk, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Jarzembowski, the reason the state of Hamburg now has a black-green government is so that the Conservatives can learn a thing or two about all this. That is excellent. I would first like to congratulate Mrs Ţicău, as it is her first report. She did a very good job, as of course, did Mr Grosch, of whom Parliament has come to expect good reports. I was somewhat startled by the questions put from outside. We are not trying to reinvent road transport with these three reports, but rather to determine how best to organise it and also ultimately how to raise the safety criteria, because there are a great many companies that want to use the roads. Finally, we are also interested in how social protection is connected with all this. The freeing up of cabotage should not really pose any problems either. As has already been mentioned, unladen journeys are of no benefit to anybody. They make no sense at all. However, we do need to ensure that the situation does not get completely out of control. Therefore, it would make sense for us to resolve tomorrow that we will check, in 2012, what has happened by then, and how everything has developed, so that we build in some reserve, as it were - and there is an amendment in this vein by Mr Grosch, which we support. By 2014, when everything is supposed to launch fully, it also should be provided with a safety clause. In the event that serious disruption to the market does occur, a Member State can then say ‘We are pressing the emergency button and going to the Commission. This is a case that requires a remedy.’

My final point concerns the 12-day rule. I have always supported it; we supported it at the time. Now, however, a new situation has arisen, in which the unions and the hauliers have reached an agreement. That could cause problems with the amendments. Therefore, tomorrow, we would be very much in favour of postponing by a month acceptance of the report that contains the part about coaches and deal with it later, in June, when it is fully ready. To do it that way would make sense and would also involve the industry.

Dirk Sterckx, on behalf of the ALDE group. – (NL) I should like to quote from the White Paper: ‘Nowadays, lorries are no longer forced to return empty from international deliveries. They can even pick up and deliver loads within a Member State other than their country of origin. Road cabotage has become a reality.’ This is what the European Commission said in 2001. Since that time, a number of Member States have once again introduced a number of restrictions and so, once again, we have a fragmented market that we did not have in 2001. What does the Commission say now? We shall mould this fragmentation into rules so that the fragmentation is the same for all. I am therefore very disappointed – I even said so to Commissioner Barrot – with the Commission proposal, which means a step back in comparison to the 1993 directive. Fortunately we have been able to do something about this but, in my view, nowhere near enough. What is it that we are doing, then? We are spending billions of euro via Galileo in order to ensure that we know where the transport is. This means that a transport company can organise its operation efficiently throughout the European market and then we say: no, stop, bureaucracy. You must submit papers despite being busy. You must do all kinds of things that mean you operate less efficiently and even possibly see your lorries returning empty. That is what the Commission is now saying, and I find it a major disappointment that the Commission even dare put it down on paper. Therefore, in this instance, I believe that the social aspect is a kind of excuse that is very readily used. Otherwise, why would the French authorities approach Belgian transport companies to find out whether they are conducting no cabotage or too much cabotage in France? The wages in are higher than in France, not lower. This is not a social issue; it is about protecting a country’s own market. The result, therefore, will be greater environmental damage followed by, within a couple of weeks, Commission proposals for green transport. Congratulations! Fortunately, therefore, we and the rapporteur have been able to do a number of things about this. I hope that these make it through. We have the prospect of an open market by 2014, but this is not enough as far as I am concerned. I would prefer to see this achieved by 2012. Nor do I believe that we require new studies. This time, we must truly throw open the market – and, Mr Piecyk, I agree with your amendment – in order to ensure that action is taken in the event of a disruption in the market. This action must be taken in an open market, however, not by creating additional obstacles in a market in which there are already hundreds. 78 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

With regard to the report by Mrs Ţicău, I am in full agreement with a strict approach towards people who are starting out in the business. Incidentally, I have made the requirements even more stringent on a number of points. I thank the rapporteur for entering into discussion with me in this respect. If we are strict towards the players in the market, therefore, we must also ensure that the market is truly an open one.

Eva Lichtenberger, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, cabotage sounds like a good idea. Preventing unladen journeys also reduces emissions and, after all, the transport sector also has an obligation to finally start reducing emissions. It is just a pity that, in the past, this regulation was frequently abused, to disregard social standards and to use dumping prices to gain market share. The rapporteur has therefore generously chosen an approach that takes this into account. Monitoring of everything that is decided here is crucial - and that is also my appeal to the Member States. Otherwise, none of it will work. I can therefore agree with this part of the package. That is not quite the case with the report on coach transport, however, where some members of the Committee on Transport and Tourism expressed a wish to include the famous 12-day rule on driving and rest times again, and the very well organised bus lobby has been providing us with an excessive amount of information for months on end, in order to achieve this. However, far too little effort was made to canvas the opinions of employees working in this industry. I could not support this regulation, purely because of the amendments. However, if an agreement between the social partners comes about – I mean between the companies and the others who are affected, because this includes people who are not part of any union, as this sector has a particularly low level of union membership – then I would like the regulation to be accepted as well. We will just have to wait and see. It is only fair to do so, if we recognise social partnership. Therefore, let us postpone this part and find a better, prudent solution later, so that we do not have to renegotiate afterwards and find ourselves in a position where we may not be able to achieve anything further.

Erik Meijer, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (NL) Mr President, my group believes that continued and improved protection of workers and consumers is more important than constantly increasing freedom for businesses within the European market. This choice is even more important in relation to cross-border, long-distance transport by bus and lorry than in many other business sectors. Regulations have applied in the coach transport sector since April 2007 that require coaches to spend one day off the road every six days during a group holiday trip in order to protect the driver from fatigue. We expressly agree with the objective of this measure. Nevertheless, we realise that the method of implementing this causes annoyance, not only to operators and customers, but also to the drivers themselves. I have previously pressed for improvement in the implementation of this by means of agreements with the trade union, the European Transport Workers’ Federation. It is better that drivers be guaranteed rest at home than be forced to do so en route in the midst of surprised and displeased customers. Agreement on this point is good, but we reject any attempts to unilaterally abolish this protection. There is exasperation in the road freight transport sector because each country has different rules on whether or not freight can be transported when driving back from abroad. As a result of this, lorries too often return largely empty. Nevertheless, it is still too early for the whole of Europe to adopt the system that now functions reasonably between the Netherlands, Belgium and . Such a system can be implemented only between countries with a similar level of income and social conditions. We have no objections to cross-border solutions if these guarantee all drivers a respectable wage, satisfactory mileage allowance and adequate safety measures. We do object, on the other hand, if in such a system the current large wage differences existing between EU Member States are abused to reduce labour costs. This would mean that everyone earning a respectable income would lose his or her job and then the only people still working in that industry would be doing so based on the current terms and conditions of employment of Poland or Romania, for example. My group has therefore submitted Amendments 45 and 46 to the report on haulage, in order to make the opening of the market for cabotage dependent upon the development of equal working conditions and an evaluation in 2012.

Johannes Blokland, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (NL) I should like to thank Mr Grosch and Mrs Ţicău for the work they have done and to make three comments. My first comment relates to the amendment of the list of offences in Mrs Ţicău’s proposal, which may lead to the permit of a transport operator being withdrawn. This list of offences is an essential element of the package, and constitutes a potential restriction of the internal market. For that reason, it would be better if 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 79

the list of offences were to be amended via the codecision rather than the comitology procedure. I have therefore submitted an amendment in support of this alteration that I hope you will all support. Secondly, I should like to stress the importance of thorough supervision of the list of offences. The proposals being discussed here this afternoon are intended to improve the internal market. This means that it is important, however, that a truly level playing field be created. The Member States will have to enforce the rules under this regulation in the same way, and therefore I request that the European Commission thoroughly monitor the correct application of this regulation by Member States. My third point is that there are indeed Member States that attempt to limit this cabotage to a minimum. This is in complete contravention of the principles of the internal market and, in addition, indirectly pollutes the environment. I shall therefore certainly lend my support to the amendment that is intended to lift the restrictions upon cabotage with effect from 2012.

Luca Romagnoli (NI). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the proposals by Mr Grosch are aimed at the uniform and stringent application of road transport regulations, which I support; I agree that criteria ought to be laid down which should have to be met before these activities can be carried out, and that surveillance by the relevant authorities should be stepped up through a single document recognition system and a system of sanctions, and that permission must be sought from the countries that these services cross. Following the excellent work by my fellow Members, I would just like to add that as I see it, shortening the time for international cabotage is not possible unless there is a truly fair and equal approach to laying down the rules so that we avoid any cases of dumping, which often ends up benefiting some operators at the expense of others. In my opinion, the 2014 deadline is fitting and could even be extended.

Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE). – Mr President, you wait for one report on buses and trucks and three come along at once. The question is, are they all travelling in the right direction? On cabotage: I am one of the strongest supporters in this Parliament of liberalisation, and indeed in general on the issue of cabotage. But, of course, I want to be absolutely certain that we do have a genuine level playing field for this to operate. We have different vehicle and road safety standards in the UK, we have a geographical seclusion, we have a particular tax system which is different to some others, and there are employment concerns: these are issues also to take into account. So, whilst I think there is a lot of clarity in the Commission proposal and I welcome it, I think that we have to be very careful in the opening-up of the market in the way proposed. The overall impact of cabotage is somewhat ambiguous and I know that a lot of hauliers, people involved in the industry, are very concerned. Therefore, I think we have to be sensible and balanced about this and I certainly would like to see a review of the proposal within four years of implementation with full consultation from the industry in the meantime. That is the only way I think that we can guarantee a level playing field and full liberalisation to have good effect. I would just like to add another point on another of the reports. I am concerned, for example, when the scope of regulation in Europe begins to extend to the transport of the elderly by volunteers. Surely the application of law to such groups is both unnecessary and unhelpful. European law should aim to always encourage mobility and access. I think that in this case, in the beautiful areas of Britain such as my own constituency of Yorkshire, we do not want any impediments to the enjoyment of our regions and this road transport package coupled with the drivers’ hours regulation should not lead to public transport in rural areas becoming a thing of the past.

Inés Ayala Sender (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, I would especially like to thank my colleagues Mrs Ţicău and Mr Grosch for their patience and their ability to bring together all the shadow rapporteurs around proposals that have at times been well supported and at times more controversial.

The truth is that Parliament has taken the opportunity to recast these texts on road transport in order to try to improve the legislation and move towards more opening up in the case of cabotage, in principle for reasons of co-modality, as we are working on in other matters, in order to promote freedom of movement and, of course, to prevent unladen journeys from being made. 80 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

In order to do this, we have suggested the possibility of establishing a clause that will ensure that the liberalisation of the market does not lead to distortion. I would like to stress that the central reason should be social dumping; and for this purpose we are also establishing the date of 2014 for complete freedom of cabotage. It should be said that to some extent this text will be more credible because we have essentially focused on serious infringements, as they are the ones that can really be monitored. Of course, we reject the suggestion of specific, privileged bilateral cabotage between neighbouring countries, because, as one of my fellow members rightly said, it fragments the market still further. With regard to the text on buses, we would like to inform you that the Socialist Group is going to ask for, or I should say, has already asked for the vote on this legislative text only to be postponed, because we think that if, as we have already been told, there is an agreement between the employers and the workers’ representatives and the trade unions for a review, shall we say, of the 12-day rule, it must be recognised –even though some of my fellow members do not wish to do so – that to some extent it opens up a review by the back door that has not been sufficiently explained or clarified, and that therefore needs this guarantee of the agreement between the employers and the trade unions. Otherwise the public will not understand why we are voting on a text tomorrow that is already useless because there is an agreement outside Parliament.

Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert (ALDE). – (NL) Discussions regarding the phenomenon of cabotage have caused emotions to run high for many years. The existing regulations are supposed to be too unclear owing to the use of the word ‘temporary’, which serves as an excuse for various Member States to illegitimately further protect their own market. In order to clarify this issue once and for all, the Commission introduced another new regulation last year and, as Mr Sterckx has just stated, I had high expectations of this. Remarkably, however, the Commission proposed that a strict check be put on cabotage opportunities. Based upon the current Commission proposal, transport operators would be faced with more restrictions, rather than greater freedom. This is indeed remarkable given that the existing regulations have been perceived as a step towards complete freedom, including by the European Commission, since their adoption in 1993. Naturally, we need a European approach. The sector should not be subject to all manner of national concoctions designed to limit cabotage opportunities to a minimum for one day longer. The Commission proposal itself, however, is not sufficiently – if at all, to be honest – in keeping with the principles and objectives of the internal market, nor with those of the Lisbon Strategy. The arguments in favour presented by the Commissioner in his speech, such as road safety, the environment and the reduction of the administrative burden, are neither here nor there. In order to achieve the greatest possible degree of efficiency with regard to planning, a free market is simply essential. After all, each restriction leads to increased transport movements, whether it relates to cabotage, as in this instance, or, for example, the totally absurd medley of driving prohibitions. Therefore, as Mr Sterckx has just quite clearly stated, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe is committed to achieving a completely free market, preferably as of 1 January 2012. The Member States must also be completely at liberty to agree unrestricted cabotage arrangements earlier than this, should they deem it desirable. Furthermore, it must be above all clear that authorisations granted prior to the entry into force of the intended regulation will nevertheless remain valid. We do not agree with the ‘another study and then we shall see’ path. The appointment of committees and study No 250 will lead to virtually nothing, except maybe to a great deal of fuss, associated costs and other bad jokes, and that is something we are all too familiar with. A free market would prove beneficial to the sector and indeed also the consumer, and this should be achieved as soon as possible. I should like to conclude by saying one more thing: that, quite rightly, there is a clear majority in this Parliament for dispensing with the references to ‘repeated minor infringements’. There is no room for these in the regulation.

Jaromír Kohlíček (GUE/NGL). – (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the three regulations we are debating here are closely linked to the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital. When the four freedoms were established in 1957, no one had clearly envisaged the transitional regulations for the new 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 81

countries of the European Union. Of course we are up against limitations set out in the Accession Treaties of the 10 new Member States. Even after the opening of the Schengen border, these countries comply with the transitional regulations for transporting people and goods that can be summed up as follows: banned or limited cabotage. In the course of debates on lowering emissions and on the effectiveness of road haulage in particular, some requirements in the regulations in question seem somewhat futuristic, in our opinion. I remember the fines on transport of empty lorries and the so-called ‘full-capacity freight transport centres’ that existed in the people’s democracies. Perhaps we will have to return to some kind of a similar regulation. Basically, we do the right thing when we try, in the common area, to harmonise the use of the existing rules, in addition to the common CMR documents. If access to the market is simplified, the restrictions on cabotage are partially relaxed, and the basic working conditions in the sector are harmonised: both in regard to employment and to the attitude of individual Member States to enforcing the EU regulation, this will be heartily approved by both entrepreneurs and employees in the sector. Consequently, having given consideration to the aspects I just mentioned, the GUE/NGL Group supports the proposals in question.

Dieter-Lebrecht Koch (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, if the regulars at the long-distance drivers’ table, hauliers and public policy watchdogs are not criticising our proposals to replace and simplify existing directives, then we are on the right path. For me, it is a good path, because it contributes to several fundamental points: firstly, to increasing safety in road transport, because controls and the exchange of the data thus gained are more important than new legislation, but also because access to a profession and the issuing of licences are subject to unified quality criteria. Secondly, to eliminating distortions to competition, because it makes it possible to put a stop to the activities of the black sheep in the transport industry, fight discrimination and increase the status of the occupation. Thirdly, to environmental protection and the conservation of energy resources by reducing unladen journeys. Fourthly, to making coach tourism more attractive, because 12-day tours will be guaranteed once more. Fifthly, to the reduction of bureaucratic requirements, because the national electronic registers will be networked and access to these should be made easier, and simplified templates for Community licences and driver attestation are also planned. Sixthly, to setting the modernisation of the sector in motion. I believe that legal certainty for future cabotage transport operations is particularly important, even if these currently make up only 2-3% of the transport market. Every unified regulation in Europe is better than the current patchwork quilt arrangement. From an ecological point of view, we should open the way for cabotage transport immediately, but from a social and economic point of view, it makes better sense to limit it for the time being. However, the goal must be the complete abolition of all limitations on cabotage transport operations by EU companies, as long as they meet the new licensing conditions. I expect to see concrete steps towards this by 2014. Moreover, we should not hamper bilateral agreements that open up the market more quickly.

Saïd El Khadraoui (PSE). – (NL) First of all, I should like to thank the rapporteurs for their work. This is an important package of measures that have a major, very specific impact upon a great many people within Europe. What stands out most is of course everything relating to cabotage. In that respect, it was and remains necessary to clarify a number of issues in order to set the bar equally high for everyone. The way in which the existing cabotage rules were interpreted varied too widely from Member State to Member State, necessitating rules. Furthermore, just to be perfectly clear: more cabotage can lead to more efficient road transport, which is good for both the economy and the environment, and must by all means be encouraged, therefore. Nevertheless, it must be clear that this must not result in social dumping, and therefore the gradual opening of the market must go hand in hand with the establishment of social rules of play that are equal for everyone. The differences in fiscal and working conditions must be smoothed out as far as possible, that is to say preferably with the worse conditions being brought up to the standard of the better conditions. The compromise of throwing open the market in 2014 therefore seems justifiable, provided that Amendments 47 and 48 are adopted, that the Commission, in particular, takes the 2012 study into the differences in social and working conditions seriously, and particularly that the Member States still have a type of alarm procedure at their disposal, including after 2014, for use in the event of serious disruption to the national transport market. There is a need for a clear definition of which activities are and are not permitted in anticipation of this, and of course adequate supervision is required. With regard to the driving times and rest periods of coach drivers, it would also seem logical to me – as a number of Members have already mentioned – to postpone the vote, so that the compromise worked out 82 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

last Friday by employers and employees can be fully incorporated into our legislation. The compromise is in the pipeline but has yet to be transposed into legal language. The result of the talks proves that social dialogue can work at European level. A good balance has been achieved, taking into account the specific features of the coach sector.

Paweł Bartłomiej Piskorski (ALDE). – (PL) Mr President, in such a short speech one can deal only with fundamental matters concerning the documents under discussion. It is worth remembering that our goal is a free market, and a free market in terms of these services – road services – too. From this aspect the documents we are discussing are in reality a type of services directive, only one that is aimed at this particular market. In this connection the second point worth thinking about is that all restrictions and indirect routes that we apply – such as solutions relating to transitional periods, cabotage and the year 2014 – are partial solutions that should not divert us off the main highway of maximum market openness. Finally, it needs to be emphasised that certain special restrictions linked to this specific market, such as working time and solutions relating to the environment and to traffic safety, are obviously of great importance here, but we should not forget where the boundaries of safety and social negotiations lie.

Jacky Hénin (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr President, we cannot seriously discuss the issue of carriage of goods by road without tackling the problem of dangerous materials. In the texts being proposed to us today, as elsewhere in European legislation, this problem is either underestimated or poorly dealt with. Yet if there is an area in which we need more from Europe, more restricting Community regulations, it is this one.

As many businesses put their dangerous materials on the roads in order to prevent their establishments from being classified as a ‘Seveso site’, the flows of dangerous materials circulating around the Union are constantly growing, thus increasing the risks of a major catastrophe. With regard to the carriage of dangerous materials by road, there is a huge lack of training, a major shortage of equipment in terms of parking areas that can safely take the vehicles concerned in accordance with Community regulations. The danger of mixed loads is sorely underestimated. Goods that are harmless when taken separately can become dangerous if they are in the same parking area; currently, people are quite simply unaware of this danger. I argue in favour of the creation of a European agency for the safety of land carriage of dangerous materials to promote a truly comprehensive safety policy at Union level.

Philip Bradbourn (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I would like to begin by saying that I wish to speak specifically on the Ţicău Report. While we have a proposal that is largely unproblematic, I would like to comment on the issue of sanctions. It is important to understand that we need common sanctions, but we also need to address the issue of common enforceability. Whilst I am against more red tape, we must find a system whereby drivers and their companies can be more easily prosecuted when they cause accidents in other Member States. At present, such companies and their drivers are escaping prosecution for offences caused, for example, in the , as the paperwork required to bring them to justice is currently too great. This is particularly alarming when we consider that according to my information there has been a 75% increase in road traffic accidents by drivers from other Member States in parts of my constituency alone in the past five years. I regularly receive complaints from people who have been quite badly injured by commercial vehicles and their drivers and it is frustrating that our present police enforcement services are either unable or unwilling to hold these drivers to account. I therefore look forward to further developments in this area so that we can ease the path in bringing these reckless individuals to justice.

Bogusław Liberadzki (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, we are holding this discussion at a rather specific time – that is, when we have lost a good Commissioner for Transport, by whom I mean – a time when we are awaiting a new Commissioner. In fact, I am interested in whether the designated candidate for Commissioner is listening to our discussion today, as that would surely be justified in every possible respect. We are talking here about the road haulage sector, a sector that has made it possible to achieve a 40% rise in economic exchange between the EU Member States in the last five years. We are talking about a sector that is de facto keeping Europe moving. My view is that we need as much freedom as possible here, including 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 83

in cabotage. At the same time, though, we need as much firmness as possible, especially in combating practices such as the existence of rogue coach operators, who are frankly wrecking the market. The sanction of withdrawing their licence is not applicable, as they do not have and have never had any such licence. Throughout the sector, though, I can see several significant threats: the price of fuel and its rise, the way in which external transport costs are internalised, the way in which working time is executed, and I also have the impression that the profitability of haulage companies is generally falling. This is why I would like to offer my particularly enthusiastic support to Mr Piecyk’s report, in order to be able to discuss the issue of bus and coach transport and to vote in June. I support Mr Sterckx’s position on the need for a new study of the consequences of opening up the market, but this should also be linked to an assessment of the economic wellbeing of the road haulage sector.

Luis de Grandes Pascual (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, I would first like to discuss Mrs Ţicău’s report. This proposal is key to modernising the occupation of transport operator, through the uniform application of common rules in all Member States to authorise access to that profession. In this respect I applaud and willingly welcome the Commission’s proposal. However, I would like to repeat a question that I raised during the debate on this report in the Committee on Transport and Tourism. It is regarding the term ‘good repute’, which I put forward, and which, in the interests of consensus, I then withdrew and proposed substituting it with ‘ethical standards’. I am not in any way questioning this requirement; on the contrary, I agree that it should be required that transport managers should not have any serious criminal convictions or serious sanctions for infringements of Community legislation relating to road transport.

I do, however, advocate changing the term, because we are presuming bad practice in a profession that is a key sector of the European economy, that generates wealth, creates employment and guarantees the mobility of people and goods. We should think carefully before assuming that someone is not of good repute to pursue an occupation if that is not proven. Secondly, I would like to highlight the importance of Mr Grosch’s report on common rules for access to the road haulage market. The proposal for a regulation defines cabotage operations, putting an end to the current legal uncertainty. It allows up to three consecutive transport operations for an international carriage of seven days. However, we should go further in order to lift any restrictions on cabotage and achieve greater liberalisation of national markets. Finally, I applaud the reduction in bureaucracy that this new proposal for a regulation brings in relation to the new simplified formats for the Community licence, copies of this licence and the drivers’ certificates, that will help to reduce the delays caused by roadside checks. Ladies and gentlemen, we need to make the transport sector more efficient and more competitive.

Rovana Plumb (PSE). – (RO) I would like to congratulate the two Rapporteurs for their work and refer to the Ţicău report. I welcome the introduction of the criteria for quality access to the profession of road transport operator into the report in order to the quality of licensed operators and not to restrict their access to the profession. Whether we speak about people or goods, the profession of road transport operator involves the performance of indispensable activities for the economic development of the Union, in harmony with the Lisbon objectives to stimulate the economic activity in the European Area. I believe the implementation of this Regulation will result in an increase in the number of jobs, as well as in achieving a higher degree of safety and correctness related to road transport in the European Union. Again, congratulations to the Rapporteurs.

Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, here in the European Union, we are always proud – and quite rightly so, more often than not – that we try to find the middle ground and work together to find a solution, and that we often succeed in this. It is not always easy. Today’s joint debate on the reports by Mrs Ţicău and Mr Grosch provides some particularly good examples of this, and also some exceptionally bad ones: the 12-day rule and cabotage have been mentioned more than once. The 12-day rule is good; hopefully it also brings social benefits. However, for a certain sector of the low-cost tourism market, it has become an increasing problem, and we want to take consumers’ interests into account here as well. We have heard that attempts are being made to arrive at a good compromise, for which perhaps 84 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

a little more time is needed. If it is a matter of a limited time – and that is indeed the case – then perhaps we should also take this time. The same applies to the cabotage rules. We are all agreed that we want to see better use made of the diverse infrastructures. However, this naturally affects many areas, particularly the transport industry, and the interests in the Member States vary widely on this. I am not entirely sure whether, when it comes to the topic of cabotage, a little ‘euromythology’ does not come into play here – simply because of the many years it has been under discussion. I would like to know whether there are really as many unladen journeys represented in the long lines of trucks that we have to overtake on the motorways – or are not allowed to overtake, as the case may be – as we are always being told. Perhaps an ‘I’m running unladen’ flag would be of interest here. However, the heart of our debate today is not so much the legislation we pass but what the Member States will put into effect, apply and implement.

Gilles Savary (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, I would first of all like to thank our two rapporteurs for the excellent work that they have done, and then hope that, under the French Presidency, this very important road package will obviously have a future and come to a conclusion. I would first like to focus on two subjects. The first is cabotage and the date that the European Parliament deemed right to set, in other words automatic liberalisation in 2014. From this point of view, there is a natural distortion created between the peripheral countries and the transit countries. Countries such as France, Germany and probably Austria are by nature the most cabotaged countries, and the fact that we have just chosen a definition of cabotage that involves cabotage following an international journey is a good thing, but it means that the social issue is definitely going to create considerable distortions, while in carriage by road, it is the principle of the country of origin that applies, once one is mobile. I therefore think that it would have been much wiser to wait, as was initially planned, for a report from the Commission enabling us to take stock of the social distortions before deciding on automatic liberalisation. My second point relates to the derogation concerning driving time for buses. As I have already said, without going into the subject in depth, I find this procedure detestable. Under pressure from pressure groups, an amendment has been tabled which is an amendment to a text that is not the original text. This issue should be resolved by a new proposal from the Commission, amending what we called here the ‘Markov report’. I would also like to remind you that we are tabling an amendment to the Markov report in the form of a regulation when the Markov report was a directive. Ladies and gentlemen, I am not – ah, it was a regulation, you are right, it was a regulation – but, in any case, I think that the formats need to be the same and that we should not get into this habit of tabling amendments, under pressure from pressure groups, to texts other than the original text.

Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I am not saying that I give preference to Mr Grosch or to Mrs Ţicău but I will speak about cabotage like my honourable colleague Mr Savary did. This cabotage discussion has been going on for many years. As one of the stakeholders said, ‘The behaviour of the Council can be compared to the behaviour of a snail’; that is how slowly the Council has been moving on this subject whereas Parliament has finally got its act together. Cabotage is more important than we realise and I have to say that I cannot agree with my dear friend, Mr Savary, when he expresses fear that the social market will be distorted. If you do not allow cabotage to happen, what does it mean? It means unnecessarily high transport costs; that means unladen, empty lorries going here and there. What is the EU all about? The EU is all about an open market, and we have to care for EU citizens. If we get the transport costs down that means that the EU citizens will benefit and therefore we are giving them added value in their daily lives. At this point in time people everywhere are asking: ‘What is the EU doing?’ Ordinary people are literally running after the money as the prizes are getting higher. Well, at the same time we cannot apply protectionism. We must allow people to have a better life and, if we can lower the costs, our economy will improve and the ordinary people will benefit from it. Just to give an example, on trade between Finland and all the transport has been taken over by Russian lorry drivers and the Finnish citizens are benefiting from it. I cannot see why French citizens – I have my feet in both camps – would not benefit from cabotage. So we have to say ‘yes’ to the future. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 85

Radovan Žerjav, President-in-Office of the Council. − (SL) Naturally I agree with all those who believe that the matter must urgently be brought to a conclusion. Admittedly cabotage is a very sensitive subject. This has become clear in your discussions today, including with respect to the individual Member States. There are some who support complete liberalisation and others who advocate partial liberalisation, while others again are essentially opposed to liberalisation. Of course it is important for us to bring our points of view into line with one another, despite the differences that exist. We must also – and I wholeheartedly agree with this – take account of small and medium-sized enterprises and, in particular, of environmental concerns. Here, I am thinking above all of what is known as transit cabotage, although I should like to leave this aside. It would be absurd – not to mention unacceptable – to have empty road traffic. Since there are differences of opinion here, in my view we need an intermediate stage or transitional period before the cabotage sector is completely liberalised. Naturally I hope that tomorrow Parliament will accept the proposed amendments that help to harmonise cabotage services in the European Union and, in particular, will accept the proposed abolition of empty road traffic, as I have already emphasised and which I wish to stress once more at this point. Thus cabotage should also be possible on the return journey. In my opinion, the differences between Parliament and the Council are not so great as to prevent progress or agreement in the relatively near future.

I also agree with all those who regard monitoring and control as very important in this area. In my view, this could also be brought about by the electronic register that is yet to be established, and here, I must emphasise, we are very close to reaching an agreement as regards the timetable and the actual establishment of this electronic register. This also applies to traditional means of control like the digital tachograph and the waybill, of which you are probably aware. Offences also play a major role, when they lead to disqualification from driving. Here, we obviously have to proceed very circumspectly and with sensitivity, and above all to be receptive to companies. The ‘12-day rule’ for bus transport has been mentioned a number of times here. The Council has not yet reached a decision on this either. However, we are also aware, and this needs to be clearly stated here, that the social partners are conducting a dialogue. Naturally we are prepared to discuss this, so that Council and Parliament come to an agreement as soon as possible. I should like to thank the two rapporteurs, Mr Grosch and Mrs Ţicău, once more for the constructive exchange of views. The Slovenian Presidency will, in any case, do all it can to bring the various interests into line with one another, and also to ensure that the final compromise text helps to make the European road transport sector more efficient and above all, as I must emphasise, more competitive. It is my hope and wish that this productive dialogue will be continued, and that agreement will be reached with the European Parliament as soon as possible.

Leonard Orban, Member of the Commission. − (RO) I am pleased with the agreement that comes into view in relation to the essential aspects of the road package. I refer in particular to the register and the withdrawal of certain abilities in the case of serious infringements of the law. On the other hand, it is obvious that the subject of cabotage is more problematic. Nevertheless, I would like to remind you that the notion of temporary cabotage, which is now in force, leaves serious legal uncertainties. This situation is not acceptable for the sector in question. No rule is perfect, but the rule proposed by the Commission – three operations within one week after an international transport – is at least clear and much easier to control. This does not introduce more or less cabotage into the Member States taken separately, but a better performed cabotage which is, on the one hand, better controllable and, on the other hand, effective from the logistic point of view. I am telling those who want more cabotage that the internal market is being built gradually and has to go hand in hand with harmonization. Since I have mentioned harmonization, I would like to remind you that certain matters regarding fiscal, salary and social harmonization are related either to the Member States’ competence or can be achieved by unanimity. In this context, we can say that total openness, without any guarantees and safeguarding measures, taking into account that cabotage is temporary, by definition, would send us back to today’s legal uncertainty. 86 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

Consequently, the European Commission accepts that the liberalization of cabotage is a long-term objective. On the other hand, we should closely monitor developments and, in this context, we are ready to make a report in 2012. In conclusion, I note the concerns expressed on numerous occasions in relation to the issue of the 12 days for tourist trips. If the European Parliament is in favour of postponing the vote on international passenger transport, the European Commission will not be against it because, indeed, we need an agreement on the register and cabotage as soon as possible but, at the same time, we also need an agreement as comprehensive as possible between the social partners on the issue of the 12 days.

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău, Rapporteur. − (RO) First of all, I would like to thank all my colleagues for the opinions they have presented. I believe this Regulation on access to the profession of road transport operator could contribute to a better harmonization of standards used by the Member States, especially as regards the financial capacity and professional competence, and will facilitate the mutual acknowledgment of the professional situation, thus making the road transport services more professional and increasing their safety and quality. As regards the 12-day derogation concerning the period of rest of coach drivers for international passenger transport, an agreement is expected in this respect between employers and trade unions and, for this reason, the two amendments will be resubmitted, in a form to be subsequently agreed together with the social partners, in the report on access to the market of coach and bus transport services. I would like to thank my colleagues for their speeches one more time, as well as the Commission and the Council for cooperation.

President. – The joint debate is closed. The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.

14. Situation of the Roma in Italy (debate)

President. – The next item is the Commission statement on the situation of the Roma in Italy.

Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission strongly condemns any form of violence against the Roma and asks the authorities of all the Member States to ensure the personal safety of all the people within their territory. The events last week in Ponticelli are not an isolated case. The racist violence that is fed by political populism, hate speech and media hype is a phenomenon that can be seen in many Member States. The Commission categorically rejects any stigmatisation of the Roma or likening them to criminals. The authorities of the Member States must not only refrain from such conduct, but also set an example in the fight against racism and xenophobia. They have the obligation to investigate racist attacks and to punish those who incite them or perpetrate them. I would like to highlight something. The very point of the European Union is to overcome what has characterised the history of Europe over the centuries, racial hatred, pogroms and destruction by fire. Europe promotes the right of every man, woman and child to be protected from persecution and discrimination. It embodies social solidarity, democracy and the rule of law, along with respect for every person of a different origin, religion, skin colour or way of life. We should not close our eyes to the real problems that the Roma are facing in Italy and in other countries. Everyone can see the extreme poverty, social exclusion, intermittent unemployment and low level of education that they are victims of. This situation leads to human suffering and social tensions. It pushes the Roma to the margins of society. This loss of talents and potential is cruel for the Roma and a loss for Europe. Why does this situation exist? The Roma are not less intelligent than the majority, and neither are they beggars or born criminals. What can we do to change this situation? Let us be honest about what the Commission can do and what the governments of the Member States must do. As was rightly underlined in the conclusions of the European Council in December 2007, which your Parliament welcomed, the Member States and the Union must do everything in their power to improve the inclusion of the Roma. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 87

With regard to free movement of citizens within the European Union, Directive 2004/38 is based on well-established principles of Union law. Many of its provisions have already been in force for decades. The Directive also incorporates the case law of the European Court of Justice on these issues. Following the accession of Romania to the European Union, the Romanians enjoy the same freedom of movement as the other citizens of the Union. The Romanians are no longer immigrants from third countries. Romanians are citizens of the Union. They cannot under any circumstances be treated less favourably than the other citizens of the Union, and the Commission will ensure that their rights are respected. The Directive allows Member States to deny citizens of the Union who are inactive and do not have sufficient resources the right to live in their territory, so that these people do not become a burden on their social welfare system. The evaluation of these resources cannot be automatic, but must take into account the behaviour of the individual. The rules on free movement are not made to benefit criminals. The Directive allows the exclusion of people whose behaviour represents a genuine, current and sufficiently serious threat to the fundamental interests of society. The fight against crime must be done with full respect for the rule of law. A decision to exclude can only be made on a case-by-case basis and the procedural guarantees and basic conditions must be respected. In the case of immediate exclusion, the urgency must be duly justified. The exclusion of citizens of the Union is an extreme measure. It is a limitation of a fundamental freedom of the Treaty. Most of the essential aspects of the inclusion of the Roma in society, such as education, employment, social inclusion, public health, improving infrastructures and housing fall under the competence of the Member States. The European Union is nevertheless prepared to take on its role of coordinating, supporting and facilitating national policies. If we all learn to exercise peer pressure, we will be able to achieve results. In the field in which the European Union clearly has competence, the fight against discrimination, I am making a commitment to ensure the application of Community legislation. Directive 2000/43 is an important instrument with a broad scope for application. Its implementation at national level must nevertheless be complemented by initiatives to raise awareness focused around rights and obligations. Active monitoring of complaints by the bodies responsible for equality and full involvement of civil society in this supervision process are essential conditions for any improvement in the situation. The events of the past week in Italy require joint efforts on our part. Our Roma fellow citizens need our solidarity in order to break the vicious circle of exclusion and violence fed by despair. I interpret this outbreak of violence as a cry for help. As political leaders it is our duty to offer every individual the hope of a sustainable solution to these problems. It is possible to combat social exclusion through targeted, made-to-measure programmes with funding from the European Structural Funds, in particular the European Social Fund. This programme could improve the living conditions of the whole population, and therefore of the minorities as well as the majority. In response to the call from the European Council and the European Parliament, we are currently examining the Community instruments and policies that can be implemented in order to promote the inclusion of the Roma. I would like to invite the Italian Government and the governments of the other Member States to discuss the results of this exercise with us and to take notice of the lessons that can be drawn from it. (Applause)

IN THE CHAIR: MRS MORGANTINI Vice-President

Thank you very much, Commissioner Špidla. Social solidarity, democracy, rule of law: I wish that Parliament was more in tune with these values!

Lívia Járóka, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (HU) Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the situation of Roma people in Italy – as in the whole of Europe – is terrible, and has been so for many decades. We have done extremely little, and the governments we guide or support, even governments belonging to our own political groups, are doing very little to put a stop to it. Neither left-wing nor right-wing governments have managed to bring about any change over recent decades as regards acceptance of the Roma, and this is why I believe it is extremely important to give this issue a regular place on the agenda and in debate in this House. We would like to ask for an even deeper commitment on the part of the political groups, however, and I believe that programmes are needed, genuine, properly 88 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

implemented integration of the Roma is needed in Europe, if Roma people are not to fall victim to atrocities as a result of this sort of mass hysteria. I do not think it is enough to make speeches in plenary sessions, and it is completely useless to treat this issue as a party political matter, because neither socialist, nor liberal, nor conservative governments have been able to do anything. The ongoing lack of action in Europe at the moment with regard to the Roma issue is something we oppose, just as we oppose any reference to – or practice of – the principle of collective guilt, and just as we oppose crime. I believe it is very important that the Italian government should do everything it can to fulfil its promise and ensure that the planned security package is not directed at any individual ethnic group, and that mass deportations are avoided. Even more important in my view, however, is the message that we can send to countries from here, from Europe, and the responsibility that the European Commission needs to assume in order to ensure that minimum requirements are put in place, that an agreement is reached among the Member States regarding how they plan to go about changing the situation of Roma people in Europe in the immediate term. I think it is indispensable for Europe’s standing in both moral and competitive terms to stop the empty talk and place the emphasis instead on action, on putting serious plans into effect. This should be the key focus. I also think that it is our task to promote and to demand this. Thank you.

Martin Schulz, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Madam President, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament requested this debate and I thank you, Commissioner Špidla, for having addressed the essential elements of what needs to be said. I am also very grateful for your very clear words. Allow me therefore to begin with a plea to us all. Those both on the right and on the left in this Chamber share common values. I am very thankful that many Conservative Members in this Parliament agree with us that we must take a humanitarian approach to the problems that we have to solve. Human dignity in the European Union is non-negotiable. Burning down camps, chasing people through the streets – this is unacceptable! This approach does not solve anything at all. Thank you, Commissioner Špidla, for placing this core value of European politics at the centre of your remarks. We want to contribute to solving problems, so I want to make one thing very clear. The problem that we are talking about today is not an Italian problem but rather a problem which, while it occurs in Italy, has in fact occurred everywhere in the European Union in recent years. The problem is that minorities are not sufficiently well integrated into European societies, and that the Roma communities in particular are suffering because of this in all EU countries. Events like those that occurred in Italy, about which we have been expressing our outrage today, have also occurred in other EU countries. Once again, therefore, this is not a time for pointing the finger at Italy. It is a time to think about how we, together with the authorities in Italy, can solve the problem, primarily in the interests of the Roma community, which needs immediate, direct assistance. It should also be solved in a way that is in the interests of the local authorities, the small towns and cities, some of which are overwhelmed by the integration work required of them. The mayors there need our help too. It was therefore very clever of you, Commissioner, to suggest that we think about how we can help municipalities like this immediately, using the EU funds available. I believe that the efforts we now have to make should all be focused in one direction. We should not be arguing at this point about who is to blame for something or who failed to do what. We should make a collective effort to take recent events as a reason to say that the Roma community needs all EU Member States, the entire community of European citizens, to be willing to integrate it. We must also insist that the Roma community allow itself to be integrated in our society. This has to be possible, with total respect for the cultural identity of this community. I spoke with Mr Frattini, the Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs, by telephone today, to make it plain that we as the Socialist Group, together with the Commission and the Council, want to achieve a solution to the most urgent problems, because I believe that we must not allow the Roma to become the target of attacks by people who want to indulge in right-wing populist politicking on the basis of these inadequacies. This is our common task; this is the reason why we requested this discussion. (Applause) 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 89

Viktória Mohácsi, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, I congratulate the Commissioner on his very fine speech on this subject. I would like to express myself in response to the anti-Romany pogroms which took place in Naples on 13 May this year and the subsequent developments in Italy. I decided to visit Rome and Naples last weekend as a kind of field research and spoke personally to people living there. I also demanded urgent intervention by the Italian authorities to ensure fundamental rights and protect Roma in the country from further acts of violent, racist aggression and to defuse the climate of anti-Romany hostility prevailing in Italy. I had written a letter to Silvio Berlusconi on 23 February. Together with 88 other NGOs, we were seriously concerned that the political campaign which had been carried out associated Roma with negative stereotypes and used the whole Romany nation as electoral scapegoats, which is totally in opposition to European values. Now we can see the impact of that campaign. The Roma emergency was declared when the media reported that a 16 year-old Romany girl had attempted to kidnap a 6 month-old baby from her mother in Naples. According to my fact-finding mission, this story is false: the police have no record of this; there is no investigation concerning this case. On 13 May a mob of approximately 60 people used Molotov cocktails to set fire to five Romany camps in Naples. Similar violent outbursts have also occurred in other Italian cities, such as Milan. What is really worrying is that, according to the information I have received from the police officers in Naples, there is no police investigation concerning this case either. I have to tell you that the Italian Government appears to be strong with those who are weak and weak with those who are strong. Whenever they raise the security issue, they should first raise the organised crimes committed by the Camorra. They intend to talk about the immigration and Roma issue in order to divert the focus from Italy’s real problems. I hope that the Italian authorities will ensure adequate and effective investigation of the events which took place in Naples and Milan and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law all responsible persons, including public officials making hostile statements about Roma which incite racial hatred. I call on the Italian authorities to cooperate fully with intergovernmental institutions, international organisations and domestic civil society to swiftly and effectively end the human rights emergency of the Roma in Italy. I also call on the European Commission to come up with an EU Roma strategy with the aim of making Roma inclusion an urgent priority and to provide leadership and coordination for Member States in their responsibility to ensure respect for the rights of their Roma citizens.

Monica Frassoni, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Parliament is not the right place for polemics against any one government; it is a place where we discuss, examine and look for shared solutions to issues that concern and worry European citizens, and what is happening in Italy concerns many Europeans. The incidents vary enormously in terms of importance and gravity: from attacks on the Roma, the situation of degradation and poverty of entire areas controlled by criminal gangs, where Italians and migrants fight over nothing, to the tragic waste crisis and finally the incredible statements made recently by Italy’s beautiful new equal opportunities minister, bordering on homophobia. Therefore, without sterile polemic, let us stick to the facts and look at what we can do to help and improve the situation, rather than make it worse. What we must not do is deny the facts. Why are we here discussing the Roma situation in Europe and Italy? It is because the Roma are the most discriminated against minority in Europe, and Parliament has been dealing with this issue for years. We are not do-gooders, but there have been episodes of extreme violence, intolerance and racism, which must be called by their real name if we want to start putting them to rights. As I said, we are not do-gooders. At the heart of the solution that we are all searching for is legality: by this I mean respect for all of the rules. This means rules that prevent people from stealing and squatting on public property, forcing children to beg or women into slavery, but also those that prohibit discrimination and persecution of the poor, and the decades-old repression of people who no longer know what nationality they are and are travellers not through choice, but because after fleeing so many times, the only thing that remains is life on the road. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the reality for many Roma in Italy and Europe.

To conclude, I would like to thank Commissioner Špidla for his contribution, because he took a courageous stand and clarified some of the points that we have always maintained with respect to Directive 2004/38/EC and how this has been misinterpreted in places by the Italian government. I hope that his work to introduce clarity can continue, with our support. 90 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

Cristiana Muscardini, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, perhaps the gravity of the economic, energy and security situation for all EU citizens should have persuaded this Parliament to take it upon itself to stem the tide of fear that seems to be sweeping through all the EU countries. Yesterday however, with its partisan decision, it chose a different path, although perhaps this was just for the benefit of the media. It is obvious that the basis for the decision is not political but party-political, because of the fact that this is a debate without resolution. This speaks volumes! We share the Pope’s view on solidarity and generosity. Before there can be solidarity, however, there must be respect for the law. Italy is known for its generosity. While other countries have fired on non-Community nationals, while other countries have turned away ships carrying refugees or left people to drown, clinging to fishing nets or wreckage, Italy has always welcomed non-EU and EU nationals with great kindness and generosity. Of course, there have also been acts of atrocity, and these must be condemned and indeed have been by the current government. We wonder, however, why the Roma situation in Italy was not picked up by Mrs Mohácsi last year, five months ago, or even a year and a half ago. Why is Parliament talking about this today, five weeks from the vote, when it failed to address the issue clearly when it was obviously urgent? No, Mr Schulz; if the title of this debate had been ‘Situation of the Roma in Europe’, we could have believed that this was a general problem. This is a party issue, whereas political solutions are needed.

Roberto Musacchio, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I agree with Commissioner Špidla: we are facing political acts and events of unprecedented gravity. The directives and declarations of the European Parliament must apply to everyone, even Italy. We say this to the current government, whose acts and declarations on taking office cause us real concern and have shocked us. We also said this to the previous government. The fight against discrimination and the commitment to integrating the Roma is enshrined in parliamentary votes. The rights of mobility and residence are pillars of European citizenship. Europe must facilitate the implementation of its decisions. As a European minority which was persecuted by the Nazis, the right to citizenship of the Roma must be recognised. I consider what has been happening of late to be extremely serious: this is political exploitation of fear, for example of Romaphobia, to win electoral consensus; fear as a basis of vote-winning. In the process, politics and democracy are being stifled, peaceful coexistence is being poisoned and the very civilisation that Europe is called on to nurture is being destroyed. This discussion must produce concrete results: the monitoring of action by the Member States, the monitoring of local action and the monitoring of the living conditions of Roma citizens.

Gerard Batten, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Madam President, what is happening in Italy is an example of what can happen when reality collides with the utopian idealism of the European Union. The idealism of the EU is that it can bring about a great, new, borderless state by means of unlimited, uncontrolled and indiscriminate immigration. The reality is that such mass and unregulated immigration brings with it massive social problems. I and my party totally condemn the violence recently seen in Italy perpetrated against groups of people because of their ethnic origin. We have heard about the integration of communities into host societies, but how can that happen when the sheer numbers of immigrants do not allow it? The EU’s mission is to create a great borderless state, and this has brought about vast movements of people in Europe in recent years, surely unparalleled since the fall of the Roman Empire. Signor Frattini, the new Italian Foreign Minister, wants to bring about tougher immigration laws. This is the same Signor Frattini who, when he was an EU Commissioner, said that Europe needed at least 20 million new immigrants from Africa and the Third World. Now that Signor Frattini has left the ivory towers of the EU and has a job in the real political world, he has changed his tune. The open-border policy of the EU means that no Member State can control who can and cannot enter their country. In Britain this has led to unbearable strains on infrastructure, public and social services and housing. It has brought about increases in disease and crime. Most of the organised crime in London, my constituency, is now the province of foreign ethnic gangs. Any country should be able to have a controlled immigration policy so that they can select what immigrants they want in the appropriate numbers for their needs. The appalling scenes of violence in Italy are a direct result of the European Union assuming control of what should be solely the province and control of nation states.

Luca Romagnoli (NI). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, unless I am mistaken, the repeated accusations made by Spanish socialists against Italy and its sovereign right to internal security come from 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 91

those who keep a close guard on their coastline, those for whom the Ceuta and Melilla affair is still fresh, those who deal with Catalan and Basque separatism by putting political polemic and terrorism on the same footing. Do Spanish and European socialists know how generous Italy has been towards the Roma? Do they know how much welfare, financial support, education and healthcare the Roma receive, which even Italian citizens do not get? Do they know what percentage of anti-social offences is attributable to these ‘travellers’? I would like to ask Commissioner Špidla who is protecting the children who are on the streets begging, selling roses and cleaning car windscreens at traffic lights in Italian cities; in short, exploited children, whose parentage is often undetermined? Why, for example, is action not being taken to analyse the DNA of all these children, with the twofold aim of protecting minors and confirming their lineage? I believe I am right in saying that a precedent exists in for the children of desaparecidos. In my opinion, Commissioner, there should be no Romany camps in Italy, or for that matter in Romania or in any other country of the European Union. As a matter of fact, to allow the Roma to express their identity properly – and for their own protection and better self-governance – I propose that the EU should advocate the creation of a Romany State, perhaps even in Eastern Europe, given that a large number of Roma come from that region. This would mean an end to their diaspora; they could manage and govern themselves autonomously, their quality of life and welfare would improve and, if you permit me to say so, so would ours!

Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, a minute is certainly not enough time to cover this topic. It has been said that the Italian Government is not being charged, but in the speeches that I have heard, there has been frequent mention of populist right-wing policy. Mrs Mohácsi said that the incident in Naples involving the six-month old baby was untrue. Mrs Frassoni blamed the Italian equal opportunities minister. A government sworn into office just six days ago is the target of fierce accusations from Spanish ministers, when much more serious incidents have taken place in . I think – in fact I am convinced – that it would have been far more plausible if the Commissioner had spoken about solidarity with citizens in general, rather than just some of them. We are and I am in favour of the issue of universal solidarity. I believe, however, that a government has a duty to ensure the safety of all its citizens, and not just some of them; it has a duty to ensure that all children can live in the same conditions, and not just some of them; it has a duty to strive for integration, but not by offering to become, in some cases, a refuge for criminals. It must defend everyone. Madam President, you have been very generous, so please allow me to finish this thought. I believe that a government cannot and should not be indicted; a government, moreover, which was voted in by an unprecedented majority in Italy. I believe that this issue, which is extremely sensitive and extremely important, as we all agree, must be tackled in earnest, and not with political gestures. I have always supported the idea that Parliament, the European Union, must abandon political posturing once and for all, and have a credible European integration policy without attacking individual governments.

Gianni Pittella (PSE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Špidla was right when he said that the recent attacks on Roma camps in Rome and Naples were very serious incidents, and that these must be dealt with by finding answers that neither absolve Europe of the blame, nor make scapegoats, nor use discriminatory and humiliating language. I apologise to Mr Romagnoli, who we have just heard. These types of response risk fuelling a dangerous climate which could erupt into violence and racism. This debate, Mr Zappalà, is not a trial for Italy or its government: the Commissioner has sent out a clear message of cooperation. We expect convincing and concrete answers from the Italian Government, in line with two basic requirements: integration and safety, and reception, integration and security in accordance with the law and enforced by the State, not by militia and vigilante patrols, which hark back to a dark time in our country’s history that we do not want to see reappearing. Some newspaper headlines today read ‘Europe puts Italy on trial’ or ‘Comrade Schulz, Berlusconi’s enemy, against Italy’. This is ridiculous.

I would like to say that Italy, a country held in high esteem and loved for its civilised values, asks Europe to fulfil its role in strengthening security and fostering integration.

Marco Pannella (ALDE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would simply like to say this: despite the gravity of these incidents, which I think everyone here recognises, there is a certain mindset and an ignorance of the situation in Italy and in Europe which frightens me. It is always somebody else’s fault. 92 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

Therefore, I demand the duty and right of self-accusation. We have been in power in Rome and Naples for 15 years! In Rome, Naples and throughout Italy, a disgraceful television campaign has emerged. The percentage of airtime spent denouncing crimes, creating a psychosis of fear, has risen from 10% to 24%. Madam President, I just want to say that where there is no democracy, there is no peace for the Roma, or even for Italians. Italy is not a democracy; there is no rule of law. We can start from this point and fight, and we can hope, but not with the cheap morality that too many of us have.

Elly de Groen-Kouwenhoven (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, I am deeply disappointed to find President Barroso not sufficiently engaged in dealing with Roma issues. In this parliamentary term we have adopted two joint resolutions on Roma and a report on Roma women, and we have had a number of meetings with the EC. Meanwhile anti-Gypsyism has increased and, apparently, the public acceptance of racism too. It is high time for action. This case in Italy with the Roma is a clear example of government-sponsored racism. The violence against the Roma scapegoats in Italy reminds me of the anti-Jewish and anti-Romany pogroms of the 1930s. Berlusconi’s political tactics look like the ones of Milošević’s ethnic cleansing in ex-Yugoslavia. I want to call on your solidarity to exert pressure on the EC and the Council for an EU Roma policy. I am convinced that the EU presidency has heard this debate and will examine the Roma issue more seriously during the next EU summit.

Roberta Angelilli (UEN). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to clear up any misunderstanding. Any act of violence and discrimination must be condemned in no uncertain terms, but we need to consider the situation, and especially to avoid hypocrisy or, even worse, political exploitation. I am sorry to be so blunt, but I would like to cast a veil over the attempts made by many in this Chamber today to place the blame for the current Roma situation in Italy on Silvio Berlusconi. Perhaps Mr Veltroni and Mr Bassolino know more about blame, especially when it comes to the squalor in illegal Romany camps. I would, however, ask everyone to make an effort to act responsibly and in earnest, which we now need after all the delays and calls for a solution which have fallen on deaf ears. We need to redouble our efforts and to stand up for the people living in the Romany camps in conditions that are absolutely inhumane and unacceptable; we need to forget the mother whose baby was almost abducted and the family of Mrs Reggiani, raped and killed just under a year ago, sadly a case that has occupied this Parliament. Our proposals, which we have been making for years, are clear: they were incorporated into both the last European Parliament resolution on the situation of the Roma in the European Union, and into the European strategy on the rights of the child. One: solve the problem of Romany camps, where health and safety is non-existent; two: propose drastic measures, such as the loss of parental authority, for those parents who force their children into begging, prostitution and child labour; three: lower the school drop-out rate among Roma children, which is 75% in some Member States; four: make better use of Community funds available for all citizens of Roma origin who work, who want to be integrated and who send their children to school, but at the same time isolate and repatriate habitual offenders. Finally, I make this appeal to the entire European Union, given that the problem concerns all Member States, as the , among others, recently pointed out with regret.

Umberto Guidoni (GUE/NGL). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Špidla, I am extremely worried by the recent events in Italy. There is a witch-hunt climate against Romanians and Roma, with a great number of punitive expeditions and with travellers’ camps that have been set on fire. The Italian Government is waging an obsessive security campaign that calls into question Europe, the Schengen Treaty and free movement in the EU. We need to readdress the security issue from the point of view of legal culture, which cannot be influenced by the emergency aspect. The rule of law requires criminal responsibility to be individual; it cannot be attributed to collective categories. To depart from this principle sets a dangerous precedent that will lead to the criminalisation of entire ethnic groups. The security requirement is legitimate, but we cannot resort to exploitation designed to fuel hatred and xenophobia for political ends. Rather than making illegal immigration a criminal offence, the Italian Government should use EU funds more effectively for integration policies. In short, we need to reopen the debate on the expulsion of the Roma 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 93

in the proper European setting and confirm that existing laws should be enforced, without calling into question the freedom of movement of EU citizens, which is an inalienable right of European citizenship.

Roberto Fiore (NI). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say that this is an indictment of a government which for two years has allowed hundreds of thousands of people to enter its country and at the same time has allowed those people to live in a state of absolute squalor, creating a new sub-proletariat. Those who did not consider a moratorium when Romania and other countries joined the EU should also be indicted. I do not think that Italy is able to tackle this problem, amid other pressing issues such as waste management, employment and housing. The Roma question is an insurmountable problem, given that this ‘solidarity’ is represented by camps – as shown on yesterday’s Porta a porta [Italian current affairs programme] – which are theoretically legal, but where there is continuous child abuse and the sanitation conditions are absolutely appalling. I think the only thing that Italy can do – and Europe must support it in this – is: 1) suspend the Schengen Treaty for at least six months with regard to Italy, since Parliament recognises that there is a problem with the Roma emergency in Italy, so there should be a suspension of the Schengen Treaty; 2) make illegal immigration a criminal offence in Italy, as it is in other countries; 3) negotiate with Romania, Bosnia, Macedonia and – in other words with both EU Member States and third countries – for the humane repatriation of Italy’s Roma population.

Mario Mauro (PPE-DE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to give Mr Schulz the benefit of the doubt when he says that he wants a constructive approach towards reception and the unavoidable rules that the Roma, like everyone else, must obey if they are to participate in the coexistence project that we call the European Union. The steady erosion of the rights and dignity of these people and the Italian victims involved in the escalating violence over the last 18 months are an example of the contradictions demonstrated by those governments and institutions that on the one hand preach understanding and on the other allow human beings to live in squalor and to be robbed, raped and killed at the hands of mob justice. If we are really determined to find a solution, Mr Schulz, ladies and gentlemen, let us admit that not only did Mr Prodi’s government collapse, but that both left and right must make an effort to accept each other. This will make it easier to shoulder a problem in which we would otherwise have been held to ransom by old-school politics and would have needed to raise the spectre of Mr Berlusconi to feel absolved from our mistakes. Thank you.

Adrian Severin (PSE). – Madam President, in Italy, a country worthy of our respect and love, the populist rhetoric has united with extreme-right doctrines and fuelled inter-ethnic hatred, encouraged anti-Roma pogroms and prepared the ground for racial laws. In a bizarre way the Roma phobia was combined with a Romanian phobia. While we protest vigorously against inhuman behaviour and discrimination in Burma or other remote places, yesterday the number of MEPs who thought that the events in Italy require more than a complaisant one-minute speech exceeded only by six the number of those who believe that this is not business as usual. The problem in Italy is not a Roma problem or a Romanian problem, as Mr Daul put it yesterday. Romanians and Roma are only victims. Italians are also victims. The events and developments in Italy are only the shocking expression of a tendency which is latent in many other places in Europe. And therefore they could spill over in all Europe; this is a European problem. To prevent this problem and to cope with the Roma challenge one does not need more repression but more integration. One does not need more police but more justice, and especially social justice. One also needs states which function, media who never mix up criminality with ethnicity and a European Union which is able to conceive and enhance a truly comprehensive and bold European strategy on Roma in particular and on intercultural relations in general. If we do not pass this test, the flames in Naples will set fire to all Europe.

Milan Horáček (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Madam President, more than 10 million Sinti and Roma live at the margins of society within the European Union. The Decade of Roma Inclusion, which began in 2005, has so far changed little about this. The incidents in Italy clearly show that measures taken so far against exclusion and discrimination have had little effect and have not been implemented. 94 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

In January we called again for an integration strategy for the Roma, and today we have debated and passed the Framework Directive on Anti-discrimination. The pogroms in the Romany areas of Italy show how urgently we need a genuine, comprehensive political solution. We do not need confrontation. True integration of the Roma into our society would be good evidence that the cornerstones of democracy, the rule of law and human rights form the foundation of the EU.

Mario Borghezio (UEN). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, as you know, it is up to the people of our country to ask the government to tackle the crime emergency, including Roma crime, realistically and without adopting a do-gooder attitude. Defend human rights by all means – this should have been done in Ceuta, but instead there was the conspiratorial silence of Socialist International. Comrade Schulz, would you agree? Above all, defend honest citizens from the unlawfulness of others, including the Roma! I will personally campaign so that the government in our country makes it a criminal offence to be a member of a criminal gang, much like the typical Roma gangs, who commit thefts, burglaries and even more serious crimes. Xenophobic violence is not characteristic of our people, let alone the people of Campania or Naples. It belongs to the Camorra, who we must fight. People are demanding safety, in the knowledge that this does not preclude humanitarian and solidarity measures. Safety is, however, the first priority, and it is just as important to guarantee this. We are not convinced by the idle talk of the Commission: citizens in Italy and in Europe are calling for protection from uncontrolled immigration and from the influx of people who are not emigrating in order to work but are often criminals who emigrate, rather than emigrants who commit crimes.

Vito Bonsignore (PPE-DE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the difficult law and order situation and the natural public reaction following the numerous episodes of violence that have shaken public opinion in my country have led the Italian Government to adopt new security measures. I believe that we must vigorously reject the attempts of those who define the provisions contained in the security package presently being ratified by the Italian Council of Ministers as discriminatory, racist and outside Community directives. Strict measures on squatting, the expulsion of migrants without visas and higher penalties for those who commit anti-social crimes are consistent with European law. Italy is and will remain a receptive country which is developing a new integration policy, but it is no longer prepared to tolerate the presence of illegal immigrants. All EU and non-EU citizens are welcome, provided that they abide by the rules of peaceful coexistence. The European Union and its 27 Member States must each do their bit, and we must monitor the situation to make sure that civil rights are respected throughout Europe.

Claudio Fava (PSE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if you do not mind I am going to stick to the facts. The facts tell us that Silvio Berlusconi’s government is reintroducing the concept of race into the Italian legal system and is rapidly marginalising Italy within the EU, systematically violating the founding principles on which Directive 2001/38/EC is built, first and foremost the fundamental principle of the right of free movement of persons. I would like to mention just two implications of this: the first we witnessed in Naples a few days ago, when the Camorra were appointed as stand-in law enforcement officers and dislodged anyone who remained in the city’s Romany camps with Molotov cocktails. The second one we heard from Mr Romagnoli, who has come out with a proposal whose origin can certainly not be embellished. This is a completely unoriginal proposal: to rebuild, build or conceive a State to which all Roma citizens are confined. I seem to recall that the same proposal was made about gypsies and Jews by Goebbels in 1930s Nazi Germany before war broke out, and the State of gypsies and Jews was replaced by crematoria. This is the message behind the proposal we have heard today.

Romano Maria La Russa (UEN). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I had planned to speak once, but I will speak again after Mr Fava has spoken, of course. Madam President, I am very sorry, but I believe, from what I have heard here today, that this debate was prompted by a persecutory, accusatory and punitive attack on a Member State and a government that was elected by an overwhelming majority. Unfortunately for some, however, it is guilty of not being a left-wing government. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 95

It is not our fault if the Roma are visible in Italy almost exclusively by virtue of their crimes of theft, robbery, child abduction and begging. This is the image that gypsies have in Italy, this is the image that the Roma have created, despite our best efforts. I am still looking for a Roma in Italy – and please someone tell me if they know of one – who is legally employed and who pays taxes. Do not accuse me of racism, please be serious. I am only defending honest Europeans – be quiet and go back to your gallery, go back to your gallery! – Madam President, I was interrupted. Do not accuse me of racism, be serious. I am only defending honest Europeans and honest Roma. Each Member State should put the safety of its citizens first, otherwise citizens will feel justified in dispensing their own justice. Therefore, to conclude, I would like the Spanish MPs and MEPs to get a grip, keep quiet and put their own houses in order a bit more.

President. − Please, Mr La Russa and Mr Pannella: we are not in the Italian Parliament, please behave properly – and stop making those gestures, do you understand? Please let us stop this, otherwise I will call the clerks!

Csaba Sógor (PPE-DE). – (HU) Thank you, Madam President. It fills me with dismay to note that, after Tibet and Kosovo, we have now arrived on European Union soil. Let us not forget that the Roma are European Union nationals; they too are EU citizens. Social issues and xenophobia are always connected. I would have been delighted if our socialist friends had also raised their voices when socialist and former communist prime ministerial candidate Walter Veltroni was still mayor, clamouring for the deportation of undesirable elements, confusing Roma people with Romanians.

Next, we must not forget that the issue of minorities is many-layered: there are Roma, new immigrants, and national minorities, but they are all alike in that every European Union country must find a solution to their problems. The minimum would be to establish a human rights committee for minorities from 2009 and ensure that legislation is uniform throughout the European Union. To conclude, I would just like to say a word or two regarding preventive strategy: the role of the EU must not merely be to put out fires; rather, it must adopt the stance that unless there is social security, respect for fundamental human rights, and cultural and territorial autonomy for minorities, there is no Europe. Thank you.

Enrique Barón Crespo (PSE). – (ES) Madam President, I would first of all like to thank Commissioner Špidla for the clarity of his speech and the speed with which the Commission has reacted. Madam President, allow me to speak on behalf a former Member of the European Parliament, the first Spanish gypsy Member of Parliament who was elected fifteen years ago, Juan de Dios Ramírez Heredia, who sent me a letter that reads as follows: ‘You are well aware of the sad events that in recent days have caused so much sorrow to hundreds of innocent gypsy families who have been victims of racist violence. As the Unión Romaní we want this debate, so that no one can ignore the fact that we must, at all costs, defend human rights and the pre-eminence that law must always have over political passions. As European gypsies we believe in Europe. No one has constantly defended a Europe without borders more than the gypsies. For this reason we think that placing arbitrary limits on the free movement of persons within European territory would be a serious step backwards for the European integration that we so much dream of.’ Allow me to conclude, Madam President, by addressing Commissioner Špidla, who, along with Vice-President Frattini, presented a plan, a roadmap for legal migration here in Parliament three years ago. I think that Vice-President Frattini did a good job as Commissioner and I hope that he will also help to deal with this situation in Italy.

Magda Kósáné Kovács (PSE). – (HU) Thank you, Madam President. In the city of Naples, the social reality that was temporarily masked by symptomatic management has burst to the surface with astonishing force. In the Europe of the 27, the problem can no longer be dealt with at Member State level; it is crying out for much more complex Community action.

The problem is not an issue of relations between one nation and another, or between old and new Member States, or even between the Roma and non-Roma population. The crisis has made visible the hopeless situation in which a million European Union citizens are living, teetering on the edge of society in the suburbs of towns stricken with unemployment, in emergency accommodation, in insanitary conditions, struggling unnoticed for survival with no proper assistance or training services. 96 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

The Socialist Group in the European Parliament has not been silent. They have taken action, and not just talked about it, and they have also stated that, in a united Europe, blaming the Roma population for the current public security situation is unacceptable. How much we understand on the basis of events like those in Naples and how we can best use the Community resources available for remedying the problems is up to us. As the person reporting to the European Parliament on Roma issues, I offer the Commissioner our cooperation and ask my fellow Members of this House to do the same.

Giuseppe Gargani (PPE-DE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, having listened carefully to the whole debate, I would like to put forward a final opinion. The debate for the most part has not been up to level of the Commissioner’s report and Mr Schulz’s invitation to ignore the specific problems or machinations of a particular country – specifically Italy – and to consider the general problem which, I think we all agree, is reception and solidarity for those who enter different countries, for the Roma, who certainly have a specific problem, and at the same time security and legality, because security and legality underpin the reception and solidarity that we must offer. We should have answered the Commissioner, who asked: what can the Commission do? I believe that Mr Barón Crespo said recently that the Commission, with the support of Parliament, can issue guidelines: European directives, when these are transposed. As with the issue of waste, so for the question of non-EU and EU nationals, a directive could be the solution, although not when Parliament, the Commission and the Council fail to take advantage of their solidarity, when they use it to have a debate which is purely about Italy and is manipulative, the government having been in office for only a few hours, a few days. If on the other hand the whole of Parliament focuses on solidarity – as envisaged by the Commissioner – then I believe we might be able to find solutions and get results.

Ioan Mircea Paşcu (PSE). – Madam President, when we Romanians were a candidate country, we were lectured amongst others by people like former Commissioner Frattini about the absolute need to respect the rights of minorities, including the Roma. Now we are members and many of the Roma population, as European citizens, have established themselves in other countries, like Italy, joining other Roma people living there, some in camps which are already 40 years old. I agree that some have committed crimes and have to be punished properly. But to generalise and incite aggressive, negative feelings against all of them, including through false media reports, is not acceptable. If we tolerate this gross infringement of the core European values, which we so much like to invoke, and close our eyes to those responsible, we only invite the worst, which would soon get completely out of control with incalculable negative consequences for the entire Union.

Renate Weber (ALDE). – (RO) I believe this debate could have been named: “Serious infringements of human rights in Italy”, because, in fact, we are dealing with the Italian Government’s lack of actions when a community has been subject to incredible violence and this was possible because, unfortunately, over the last months, the racist speech of a part of the Italian press, as well as some top politicians, remind us of the worst periods in Europe’s recent history. The Italian government has the obligation to investigate the authors of these violent acts, who must be tried and the Italian justice must decide. Otherwise, the Italian government seriously infringes articles 6 of the . The non-State actors, the criminals, must answer before the Italian justice. The Italian government must answer before the European Union. This is the spirit of article 6 of the Treaty.

László Tőkés (Verts/ALE). – (HU) Madam President, estimates suggest that Romania has several million gypsy citizens, and instead of there being a responsible social and minority policy addressing their intolerable situation, the world tends to hear about their fate through the sensationalist media. We witnessed this in connection with the criminal acts committed by Romanian gypsies in Italy.

It is regrettable and distressing that it is only the shocking events in Italy that have managed to reach the European Parliament’s social response threshold. It is even sadder that some political forces are treating these events as interference in Italy’s domestic affairs and are trying to make political capital out of the gypsy issue. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 97

We must, on the other hand, oppose the use of anti-Romanian gypsy sentiment among the public by some political forces to foment anti-Romanian feeling in general. In the first place, the situation that has evolved in Italy is not an Italian domestic matter, and neither is it merely an issue relating to Romanian gypsies. It is an issue concerning all gypsy people living within the European Union, and one that demands and warrants more than just case-by-case or symptomatic treatment.

Giusto Catania (GUE/NGL). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, a political and media campaign is under way for the criminalisation of migrants and the Roma in Italy. A number of Italian MPs have exposed the Italian Government’s true self here today, for example Mr Fiore, Mr Borghezio and Mr La Russa, who, as we all heard, clearly said that Schengen needed to be suspended, illegal immigration made a criminal offence, and all Roma expelled: it is tantamount to equating the Roma to criminals. This is the real Italian Government. The campaign is evident from the fact that it has just announced the appointment of a Roma special commissioner. This was followed by a round-up of Roma, instead of arresting those who set fire to the Romany camps in Italy. Statements of the kind that we have heard here are often expressed by various ministers in the Italian Government. This is why, Mrs Muscardini, we are having the debate now and did not do so sooner. Only one thing needs to be said, and I will conclude on this point: there are 200 000 Roma in Italy. Of these, 80 000 are Italian citizens. Of the remaining 120 000, 50 000 were born in Italy. If we granted citizenship, that would probably solve a large part of the Roma problem in Italy.

Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. − (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak, having listened to your debate. Allow me to touch very briefly on several issues. The history of Europe shows quite clearly that racism, ethnic hatred and intolerance always end up in disaster, sooner or later. Those who do not learn their lesson from history will sometimes experience the disaster again. The concept of human rights is Europe’s answer to the lesson of history. Human rights are indivisible and must be protected by all constitutional systems throughout Europe, in all Member States. Each Member State must comply with this and make adequate efforts to fulfil this duty. There is another thing I want to mention in this context. This morning we debated poverty and social exclusion. It is true that poverty in Europe has been very individualised, very much pertinent to personal circumstances. There is one single exception though. If you belong to the Roma minority, with only a few exceptions you are socially excluded and poor, practically everywhere in Europe. That is the reality. On the other hand, it is clear that the situation of Roma citizens is not the same in all countries and that there are effective projects and methods that improve their situation. The debate also clearly showed that the issue of minorities is very complex and, as I said before, it must primarily be dealt with by the Member States, although there is also a role for the European Union and the European Commission. Therefore, I am pleased to be able to say, ladies and gentlemen, that as early as June we will submit a conceptual document to the Council that will attempt to review our hitherto ineffective policies. This is the unfortunate truth and this issue requires a great deal of effort on our side. The debate also showed clearly how easy it is to turn such extreme issues into political instruments. One of the duties of all democratic forces is to prevent such manipulation, which makes any efficient approach to the issue impossible. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for expressing your views, which clearly highlighted the many facets of this matter. I would perhaps add just one more quick word: you expressed a number of different views, many of which I do not support. This is normal, just as some of you may not agree with my views. However, we heard one view that is quite unacceptable. I cannot remember who voiced this opinion but I believe you noticed it, too.

President. − The debate is closed. Thank you, Commissioner Špidla. I wish that this issue could be discussed calmly, with humanity and dignity, as President Pöttering often says.

Mr Romagnoli, I have not forgotten about you. You made a request based on Rule 145, which is personal, so you will have a chance to speak after the debate, which is now. You have one minute. I just need to remind you that under Rule 145, you must not enter into the merits of the debate, but simply state whether there is a personal matter or comments that you think were wrongly attributed to you. 98 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

Luca Romagnoli (NI). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that this should be a place of free and educated debate, but it fails to be that if it tolerates rudeness and insults that were perhaps unfounded. Personally, I have always condemned and still do condemn all violence and discrimination, at any time and in whatever form, against both individuals and communities; I believe that self-determination, if we grant it to Palestinians, must also apply to others, so this was what I meant when I expressed my views about the Roma. I am sorry that someone twisted my words. I am sorry that some of my fellow Members called me names that I do not deserve, as anyone who knows me will agree. No one wants to question human rights. I am not a racist or a xenophobe, but I insist, ladies and gentlemen, on the right to social order which everyone here should defend, and on Italy’s right to complete sovereignty.

President. − There was the business of a request; the Secretariat is checking, because there was no mention of what type of request it was. As you know, there is no resolution and no vote.

Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, I fully understand that often it is not possible to allow everyone to speak under the ‘catch the eye’ procedure. However, I do not understand why selection should then come down to allocating the right to speak to each group. This distorts the political weightings in the European Parliament significantly. Basically, it means that the small groupings are repeatedly given a much greater weighting. That is a legitimate political concern, but it is not what was intended by ‘catch the eye’ in the Rules of Procedure.

I would also like to ask that in future, when somebody registers to speak in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, they are in fact given the opportunity to speak.

President. − We have five minutes left of allotted time. This was decided by the Conference of Presidents, and this is the correct amount of time. I will, however, make a note of your comments. Written statements (Rule 142)

Titus Corlăţean (PSE), in writing. – (RO) The increase of violence against Romanian immigrants and the Roma population in Italy is the direct result of extremist speeches of fascist type, promoted by the right-wing and extremist right-wing parties in the recently ended electoral campaign in Italy. The Italian authorities should take into consideration the fact that the legislative amendments they intend to adopt must strictly comply with the European norms and not provide any collective expulsions or continue to promote a xenophobic attitude toward Community citizens settled in Italy. In fact, the main problem is not related to criminality. This involves an individual liability and it should be sanctioned as such by the Italian justice, according to the Italian laws. The priority is a coherent policy of integration into the Italian society and the support of the Italian State, including by using the European funds in this field. We regret the previous position of the Liberal Government in Bucharest and the ALDE group in the European Parliament, which refused the mandate extension for the appointed by Romania for minority issues in Europe, including issues related to the Roma population. Thus, Romania has lost an important political lever and the possibility to generate European solutions regarding the issue of integrating the Roma people into European society.

Corina Creţu (PSE), in writing. – (RO) I welcome the fact that the European Parliament decided to organize a debate on the situation of the Roma community in Italy. This is a signal that this issue has begun to be seen in its true dimension: the European one. The issue of the Roma is so complex that only mobilizing the energies of the entire European Union could provide a concrete solution to a situation that comes from history. This is why we need a strategy and concerted action at a continental level. I request the competent Commissioners to propose a work plan in this respect urgently.

I also believe it is the duty of the European forums to take a firm position on the way in which the Italian authorities understand implementing extreme measures. Setting nomad camps on fire, night raids, arrests without warrant and threats with mobilizing the army in the fight against crime – all these reflect an 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 99

atmosphere of painful intolerance for the 21st century and represent a dangerous situation for the future of the EU. If we arrive at legislating on the climate of ethical and racial hatred, I believe it is the duty of the EU to consider the adoption of possible sanctions against a government that infringes the values at the foundation of the United Europe.

Rovana Plumb (PSE), in writing. – (RO) The recent events in Italy and the xenophobic position of the representatives of right-wing and extreme right-wing parties, which have formed the new government, against the Roma people prove that, unfortunately, speech and actions of a fascist nature are present in 2008 Europe. Making criminality ethnic is extremely dangerous, as well as the fact that politicians and the mass-media, by the media overlapping of crimes committed by Roma people, promote the idea that all criminals come from the Roma population. Criminality is individual and should be punished in compliance with the laws of the Italian state. The increase of violence against the Roma people in Italy both in speech and action is a European problem due to the consequences it may have and its solution consists in an integrationist policy of the Italian authorities regarding the Roma people. The European Union provides a series of funds for financing such social integration programmes, which the Italian executive can and should use. Secondly, the Community executive should take actions regarding the discrimination against certain ethnic categories on the Italian labour market, since at this moment Italy is far from achieving the objective of full employment.

Theodor Dumitru Stolojan (PPE-DE), in writing. – (RO) I welcome the position expressed by the European Commission through the voice of the European Commissioner Vladimír Špidla, of condemning the violence against the Roma people, wherever they are. I also emphasize the need for a European strategy regarding the inclusion of the Roma population into the economic, social and political life of the European countries where they live. In the absence of such a European strategy, each country will try to solve its problems regarding the Roma population sometimes by using policies and means that are incompatible with the fundamental human rights, the free movement of people in the European area. Thus, I remind the European Commission that the European Parliament approved the Resolution for a European strategy on the Roma in November 2007. My country, Romania, has made great efforts to include the Roma people. The results have started to appear but the programmes in operation require more time in order to be able to assess their efficiency. From these programmes, I mention in particular the training of specialists from among the Roma people for public administration and police, the decrease in school abandonment among the Roma children, as well as their integration into universities.

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE), in writing. – (RO) One of the fundamental principles of the European Union is the free movement of people. The area of freedom, security and justice should ensure the security and, particularly, the respect for the rights of all European citizens. The current situation of the Roma people in Italy questions precisely the common fundamental values upon which the European construction relies. On 14 December 2007, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union was signed and adopted. The European Union acknowledges the values stated in this Charter, in Article 6 which says that "The Union is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity" and "the Union places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the citizenship of the Union and by creating an area of freedom, security and justice". Also, Article 19 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights mentions explicitly that collective expulsions are forbidden. I request the Italian government to ensure compliance with the rights of the Romanian citizens in Italy, as well as their safety. I request the Italian government to take actions against any forms of discrimination on nationality or ethnicity criteria. 100 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

I request the Commission, in its capacity as guardian of the Treaties, to sanction firmly the infringement of the fundamental rights of the European citizens and not allow the adoption of laws or actions that would limit the free movement of people.

IN THE CHAIR: Diana WALLIS Vice-President

15. Question Time (Commission)

President. − The next item is Question Time (B6-0156/2008). The following questions are addressed to the Commission. Part one

President. − Question No 29 by Linda McAvan (H-0306/08) Subject: Biofuel trading practices What action is the Commission taking to stop the reported biofuels trading practice that exploits US agricultural subsidies? The practice involves shipping biodiesel from Europe to the US where some fuel is added, allowing traders to claim 11p a litre of US subsidy. It is then shipped back and sold below domestic prices. It is estimated that up to 10% of exports of biofuels from the US to Europe are part of this rogue scheme. This is not an illegal act, but puts the European biofuel industry at risk. It also involves unnecessary shipping across the Atlantic, which increases emissions of greenhouse gases. Will the sustainability criteria as proposed by the Commission solve this problem and make it illegal to sell biofuels on the European market that have been involved in this practice?

Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. − While the Commission cannot comment on the extent of the alleged practice referred to in the question, it shares the concerns about the impact on the European industry of the tax subsidy. The subsidy appears to benefit all bio-diesel exported from and, by the way, sold in the United States, whatever its source. According to the industry data, the US exports to the European Union rose from 100 000 tonnes in 2006 to 1 million tonnes in 2007, which is equal to about 15% of the European market. My colleague, Commissioner Mandelson, has raised this on a number of occasions with his US counterpart, Trade Representative Susan Schwab. He has advocated a change in the US legislation, for example restricting the subsidy to goods sold in the United States as a possible solution to the problem. So far there has been no movement from the United States side and the tax credit remains in force. The Commission would be prepared to consider an anti-subsidy investigation upon receipt of a properly documented complaint from the European Union industry containing sufficient evidence of countervailable subsidisation and injury. The honourable Member asks whether the sustainability scheme proposed by the Commission in its proposal for the directive on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources, adopted by the Commission this January, will solve the problem created by the trading practice referred to in the question. The sustainability scheme provided for by the Renewable Energy Directive is about ensuring the sustainability of biofuels. It is designed to promote the use of sustainably produced biofuels while discouraging the use of poorly performing ones. You will remember the 35% discussion. The sustainability scheme would therefore not be able to address trading practices such as the one referred to in the question from the honourable Member.

Linda McAvan (PSE). – Commissioner, I am glad you are dealing with this. I think it is a scandal and it makes a mockery of all the work we are doing on climate change. In terms of sustainability criteria, if we have a greenhouse gas savings criterion, would these kinds of biofuels not fall foul of that because it has been 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 101

shipped up and down the Atlantic adding greenhouse gas from shipping emissions, which are 5% of world

CO2 at the moment? If we have to wait for a complaint from industry and the opening of a procedure on illegal subsidies, how long will that take? My fear is that, by the time we get something done, the European industry will have gone out of business.

Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. − The method of the calculation of greenhouse gas emission from biofuels compared to fossil fuel emission contained in the Renewable Energy Directive follows what we call the life cycle approach, which also takes into account the level of emission produced during transport of biofuels both within and outside the European Union. In this respect let me reiterate once more that reducing greenhouse gas emission from transport is one of the guiding objectives of the biofuel policy.

President. − Question No 30 by Johan Van Hecke (H-0332/08) Subject: European food aid programme for the most deprived persons In 2005, the European Parliament approved a written declaration on the durability of the European food aid programme for the most deprived persons. The declaration not only advocated a permanent food aid programme plus an annual budget, but also called for it to be expanded. To ensure distribution of balanced food rations, the European Parliament called for the programme to be opened up to new sectors such as pork, poultry and eggs. Mariann Fischer Boel, European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, was tasked with following up the declaration. That fact is that, three years later, there is still no sign of a basis for a new regulation and that only modest steps have been taken. As yet, it is totally unclear what budget funding is available. Food aid is very much an issue in the European Union, where 16% of the population lives below the poverty line. Can the Commission ensure a food aid programme at European level? In the process, will it enter into a dialogue with the European NGOs active in the field?

Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. − For 20 years the European food aid programme has made a decisive contribution in meeting the food requirements of undernourished people in the Community. On 4 April 2006 this Parliament adopted a supportive declaration on the European food programme for the most deprived people in the Community. This declaration calls on the Commission and the Council to provide a multiannual budget allocation and to introduce a series of flexibility measures in the management of the programme. A strong emphasis is also put on the need to secure a balanced diet for needy people. This programme actually started back in 1987 as an emergency measure in a time of abundant surpluses of agricultural production. During its first years, the food aid programme mainly relied on supply from intervention stocks. As stocks have been declining over the last years as a consequence of the successive reforms of the common agricultural policy, the Commission introduced a series of changes to secure the continuation of this scheme and these changes include the possibility of market purchase for products that are not available from our intervention stocks, the exchange of products within the same ‘family’ and the possibility to mix or incorporate intervention products and products bought on the market. The budget has also been adjusted in particular to take into account the recent enlargement of the European Union. It has increased from EUR 213 million in 2004 to EUR 305 million this year, 2008. Therefore the Commission has made all efforts to keep in operation a programme that is based on intervention stocks in spite of the fact that these were vanishing. So we can actually say that we have been pushing the programme to its limits. Now the time has arrived to rethink the future of this programme without losing sight of its broader picture. With this aim the Commission services are already working on an impact assessment that examines the options for the future. The internet consultation has attracted huge participation with more than 12 000 replies, which proves the high interest among European citizens for this initiative. NGOs have actually played a crucial role in the implementation of the programme and they will also remain a key player in the future. In a seminar which we organised in April they expressed the wish to maintain the food aid programme under the administration of the Directorate-General for Agriculture and they also stressed the need to introduce some kind of a multiannual allocation of funds and supply a broader range 102 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

of different products. We are now examining these requests from the NGOs and will stay in close contact with them. After the completion of the impact assessment I intend to submit to this Parliament in September a proposal that allows the continuation of this scheme but on a very solid basis for the future. So I thank you very much for your interest and attention to this very important scheme.

Johan Van Hecke (ALDE). – (NL) Madam President, I should like first and foremost to thank the Commissioner for this very clear, full reply, which also offers prospects for greater durability of this food aid programme, based upon the evaluation that is currently under way. I only wanted to ask whether this evaluation also takes into account the fact that a large number of people are still evidently dependent upon this food aid programme and that almost 16% of the European population lives below the poverty line, and whether it also takes account of the current food crisis and the spectacular growth in food prices.

Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. − We are taking into account all the input that we are getting from our very open approach to this process. According to the current figures available, 13 million people in the European Union are taking advantage of the special scheme for deprived people. As far as we can see, demand is not decreasing at the moment.

Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) In many cases it is children who suffer most from poverty. Lack of food impairs not only physical development but also the ability to concentrate and achieve at school. This can then also affect a child’s future success in life. Within the framework of the planned food aid programme, what arrangements are being made in this problem area to work through schools, for example?

Jörg Leichtfried (PSE). – (DE) I am sure it will be a good proposal, especially as you have also mentioned the necessity of a balanced diet. It is vital that this is a key focus. In this connection, the Commission could also add another key point, and that is to concentrate on fresh organic produce. Everyone has a right to eat products that may be slightly more expensive but are much healthier. To what extent will you be taking this into account?

Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. − First of all, what we are doing just now is evaluating all the ideas and information that we have got. In this context we are trying to judge whether we should target our money in a specific way. We have not yet finalised our internal discussions, but I can say this regarding children: I think it is of huge importance that first of all we ensure that our young people are well nourished and therefore we will also publish this year an idea (and I hope to get full support for it) for a school fruit scheme in cofinancing with Member States that can offer children at a certain age the possibility to have a piece of fruit at school. I think it is in general a good idea providing a good habit to young people that hopefully will follow them throughout their lifetime. As to giving special priority to organic production: I think we have to choose between the devil and the deep blue sea, because if we choose organic we get less food and I think that is going to be a very difficult judgement to make.

President. − Question No 31 by Alain Hutchinson (H-0338/08) Subject: Speculation and the food crisis Financial speculation is a major factor behind rising prices and the world food crisis. The commodities market in particular is attracting growing interest from investment funds. Is the Commission prepared to accept that, for the benefit of the few, commodities such as rice or wheat are becoming the focus of speculation while, at the same time, millions of people are dying of hunger? Does it intend to take practical steps to end all financial speculation which directly jeopardises the food security of millions of people?

Does it also intend to promote the implementation at international level of a mechanism preventing countries from restricting exports of foodstuffs of which they hold large stocks and, more generally, from pursuing all policies that have the direct result of preventing the most vulnerable from exercising their right to food? Part two 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 103

Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. − The Commission is actually very concerned about the impact of the current high prices, both within the European Union and also in the more global context. Developing countries and the most vulnerable populations have actually been hit very disproportionately with the consequent risks of hunger, malnutrition and social unrest. The communication that the Commission has presented today tries to analyse the root causes of these high prices. The Commission has presented a series of initiatives to counter the short-term effects of the food price shock, to increase agricultural supply and ensure food security in the longer term, and to contribute to the global effort to tackle the effects of the price rises on poor populations. Concerning the root causes, there are many factors which are simultaneously reducing global supplies: adverse weather conditions in key grain-producing and exporting countries, mainly Russia and Ukraine, which was previously called the bread basket of the Soviet Union. We have had adverse weather conditions in for three consecutive years. We have had higher energy costs. We have had slower increases in yields and increasing global consumption. These direct impacts on supply and demand are significant contributors to agricultural commodity prices and to the increases that we have seen. Against the backdrop of food price increases, and in the wake of the financial market crisis, there has been increased activity in commodity-related financial markets to hedge price risk or diversify investment portfolios. These activities may have led to increased price movements and volatility on futures and spot commodity markets and have amplified the underlying price movements, but their influence on long-term price formation remains uncertain. So in today’s communication the Commission commits to monitoring closely activities by speculative investors in commodity-related financial markets and their impacts on price movements.

The communication notes that some exporting countries have responded to the rising prices by actually restricting their exports. has introduced export bans, Vietnam and Thailand rice export limits, export taxes on palm oil, and Kazakhstan a ban on wheat exports. Such taxes and export bans are designed to protect the domestic markets from short-term supply shortfalls and price shocks. However, they further tighten international agricultural markets to the detriment, especially, of the food-importing developing countries. In a medium-term perspective, such restrictions clearly send the wrong market signals, reducing the incentive for farmers to invest and to increase their production, and contributing to an imbalance on regional markets. The issue of the very negative impact of export restrictions should be raised at the relevant forthcoming meetings of the WTO and in other relevant international fora. The Commission remains convinced that there are significant potential gains for developing countries from the Doha Round in terms of new market opportunities, which would help generate additional export income, stimulate agricultural production and facilitate access to foodstuffs, thereby alleviating the current food price hikes. The Commission will therefore continue to work for a comprehensive and balanced Doha deal. The Commission trusts that it can count on the support of this House for the policy direction presented in today’s communication as a basis for tackling the challenges that we are facing in this situation with prices that are actually going through the roof in some areas.

Alain Hutchinson (PSE). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, thank you for this relatively long and interesting response. Nevertheless, in relation to one of the elements that triggered this crisis of financial speculation on agricultural products, I would like to ask you whether, following the scandalous behaviour of certain European banks – KBC and Deutsche Bank in particular – which, as you know, conducted entirely ‘unethical’ advertising regarding speculation on food products… I would like to ask you what the Commission intends to do about this. Along with my colleague Mrs Carlotti, I wrote a letter to President Barroso on 6 May, for which I have not yet received an acknowledgement, but I hope to receive a reply one day. The letter requested and proposed taking every measure aimed at banning, and I will read from the text: ‘the offering, dissemination or promotion of financial instruments within the European Union, including investment insurance and in particular insurance products associated with investment funds, if their yield is directly linked to speculation on the increase in the price of food raw materials’. Could you tell me what the Commission’s intentions are in this respect?

Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. − I shall be very brief because I touched upon this in my first intervention. That might be the reason why it was fairly long. In the communication the Commission 104 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

presented today it commits itself to monitoring the activities of speculative investors closely in commodity-related financial markets and the impact of those speculations on prices.

Danutė Budreikaitė (ALDE). – (LT) As consumers, we instantly feel the effects of any price increase. However, throughout the price chain, with speculations being made, there are winners and there are losers, with producers of agricultural products finding themselves in the position of loser most often. In your opinion, what could be done to ensure that the increase in the price of agricultural raw materials is in proportion to the general price increase – in other words, to ensure that commodity prices are fair and farmers can have a decent life?

Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Madam President, while fully acknowledging the good motivation of the questioner and indeed the complexity of the issue before us, could the Commissioner confirm that she has no intention, nor do her other colleagues in the college of Commissioners, of interfering with the operation of the commodities market, which has the potential to do more harm than good if this particular avenue were taken? We agree on the end, but not on the means of how to get there, I would say to the questioner.

Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. − I completely agree with the question raised on the consequences for the primary producer, for the farmer. The situation actually is that we have seen increases, especially in the cereal sector. When we talk about these extraordinary high prices, I always like to look back a bit in history to see how prices have developed; and, taking the past 30 years, prices have been decreasing the whole time from the primary producer. This has not meant that prices have not been increasing in the retail sector. But if you compare prices on cereals in 1975 and today and look at fixed prices, the prices were twice as high in 1975 compared to today. We see a situation where people are used to the fact that on average in Europe, I think it is only 14% of the income that is spent on food, and this has been decreasing as well over the whole period. When mention is made in the communication about what is going to be done, it is obvious that we have to look at the whole chain. It is the competitiveness Commissioner who is in charge of surveying the situation and we do not know at this stage whether there will be a positive or negative outcome. But we will keep an eye on all the reasons that are behind the increasing prices that we have seen since late August of last year.

President. − Question No 32 by Avril Doyle (H-0271/08) Subject: Communication and the Lisbon Treaty In the context of Plan D and the recently announced Communication 'Debate Europe - building on the experience of Plan D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate', could the Commission report on their communication strategy vis-à-vis the ratification process of the Lisbon Treaty? What concrete measures has the Commission taken to ensure a smooth ratification of the Lisbon Treaty?

Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. − On the question about Plan D and the communication about ‘Debate Europe’, let me say that I see it as our duty, together with Member States and the other EU institutions, to communicate with citizens about all our policies and positions. While, on the Treaty, Member States of course have the main responsibility, the Commission must also stand ready to inform and explain. Our recent communication, ‘Debate Europe’, aims at promoting active dialogue between citizens and decision-makers and, although not specifically referring to the Lisbon Treaty, or to the Lisbon Treaty only, actions taken under ‘Debate Europe’ may be connected with communicating on the Treaty. The Treaty is one of our communication priorities for 2008. Our activities have been decentralised and differentiated to fit the national realities in each of our Member States, and this is ‘going local’ working in practice. Our representatives have worked with each Member State and Parliament information offices to draw up national communication plans to respond to different needs, and the activities have included liaising with national stakeholders, training for journalists, information relays and multipliers, discussions with civil society and events at schools and universities. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 105

We have prepared a broad range of support materials including PowerPoint presentations, elements for speeches, questions and answers, fact-sheets on different areas – all aiming to help communicators provide the facts on the issues. And from Brussels, as you know, the Commission has also launched a website dedicated to the Treaty in the 23 official languages, and our on-line forum ‘Debate Europe’ has recently been relaunched with discussions on the Treaty proving one of the most popular areas, with many thousands of submissions.

Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Thank you, Commissioner. So, why is ‘Debate Europe’ not working? In Ireland the exhaustive time spent counteracting a litany of issues – often important in their own right but totally irrelevant to the content of the Lisbon Treaty – which create fear and confusion, deliberately or otherwise, is seriously detracting from the positive message of Lisbon. And knowledge matters in EU referendums. Voters’ confidence in their knowledge of the issues involved in the Lisbon Treaty is crucial to the successful outcome of this referendum, for them to vote ‘yes’, having decided to vote at all in the first place. ‘Levels of knowledge of the Treaty suggest public opinion [in Ireland] is more like Nice 1 than Nice 2’ – the words of Professor Richard Sinnott, not mine. Notwithstanding ‘Debate Europe’, Commissioner, as the Commission and Member States to date have failed abysmally to communicate Europe and how it works and an understanding of its present Treaties to over 90% of our citizens, how do you advise us now to communicate amendments to those same Treaties, amendments to Europe, to ensure the necessary degree of knowledge for the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty? We have failed to communicate Europe; how will we communicate amendments to a Europe that nobody understands?

Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. − First of all, partnership is the key word. We cannot do it from Brussels; we cannot do it from the Commission side alone: we have to work together in communicating decisions we have taken together. I think that there are different roles given to the Commission and the institutions, compared with, for example, ministers, who of course also have to be out there everywhere in Ireland as well as in all other Member States to help, to explain, to listen and to communicate what this is all about. I think that if you start by communicating on amendments I am afraid that you have already lost the audience. My experience is that if you communicate clearly on the substance issues then it is much easier, and this is exactly also what our representation office in Ireland is trying to do: to communicate on the different substance issues. I know that, following a call for tender, they have engaged in, I think, about 20 different local meetings, where they also engage politicians, Irish politicians, to try to spread information and engage them on different substance issues. It might not be enough but we have to continue along these lines. I think, of course, that engaging with the media is one of the most important things. At the same time, it is important to respect the very particular laws and regulations you have in Ireland when it comes to debate before a referendum, and we are of course trying to do that as well. But we have an obligation to communicate and to engage with citizens on the policies and the positions that the institutions take, and I hope we can continue to do it hand in hand.

Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Are there any market research findings and opinion polls that would show what information European citizens actually need regarding this Reform Treaty? Are politicians in Europe, from local municipality level up to European level, also being targeted? What information is required here, and what will you do in the information offices in the capital cities in order to be able to improve the range supplied?

Justas Vincas Paleckis (PSE). – Madam Commissioner, you have mentioned the referendum in Ireland, and in three weeks they will have a very important, maybe decisive, vote in that country. We all remember the outcome of the Nice Treaty referendum in that very EU-friendly country some 10 years ago. What lessons have been drawn from this unfortunate experience, and how is the Commission participating in the pre-referendum discussion debate in Ireland?

Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. − Thank you very much for these relevant questions. What about knowing public opinion? Well, we have our opinion polls through the Eurobarometer which give us a lot of guidance and where we can also identify some of the information needs. On top of that, of course, different opinion polls are also carried out in every Member State to find out more of the details and to make it country-specific. So I think we can say that we have a fairly good basis of knowledge of what 106 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

citizens expect and what they need when it comes to information, although I also think that it can vary a bit from one Member State to another. I think that one of the lessons drawn in Ireland was the need to engage on a very broad scale and that is why the National Forum was set up; I think that, following visits from both myself and, most recently, President Barroso, we have tried to engage and listen to the National Forum and their needs and we are trying through our representation office to respond to those needs, while also respecting that there is always a very special situation when you have a referendum: for example, you also have to respect the McKenna legislation which is in place in Ireland. This of course restricts or sets very clear limits on what ministers or the government can do. At the same time we have a general obligation to engage and provide information, which cannot be taken away from us, and I think that this is how we have learnt how to engage with the National Forum and also how to do more using the media and with young people especially, but also with women because in our experience they are the ones who very often feel alienated and distant from the debate. That is also where we have to use modern communication tools like the internet: another lesson learnt is that we have to engage through the internet.

President. − Question No 33 by Justas Vincas Paleckis (H-0301/08) Subject: Closer cooperation between European Commission and European Parliament representations The Commission is seeking to increase citizens’ involvement in discussions on EU matters. At the start of April of this year, the Commission announced the ‘Debate Europe’ initiative. The intention is to broaden further the activities carried out at EU Member State level: consulting citizens, sharing information, knowledge and ideas about the EU, and providing opportunities for voters to meet EU officials. In some EU capitals, it is said that Commission and European Parliament representations cooperate poorly when it comes to giving EU citizens a better idea of what is happening in the EU and acquainting them with its agenda, its institutions and its Member States. Commission and Parliament representations often work separately, duplicating each other’s activities, and do not carry out large joint projects. As the European Parliament elections in 2009 approach, are efforts being made to improve cooperation between Commission and Parliament representations in different countries? If so, what specifically will be done?

Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. − 2008 is a crucial year for all of the institutions to prepare for the European elections next year. It is in all our interests to work together to maximise turn-out in June 2009. The work launched by the recent communication ‘Debate Europe’, promoting active dialogue between citizens and decision makers on European issues, should contribute to this work. But the Commission and Parliament already work in close partnership in these areas, both in Brussels and at the level of our representation and information offices in Member States. Last month our services started a new working group to maximise the joint impact of our activities and also to seek closer cooperation between Commission and Parliament representations and offices. We are looking to revise the 2001 Code of Conduct on the working relationship that will open up new ways for us to work together, as well as facilitating the common use of resources such as audiovisual or press monitoring tools. We are also committed to the goal of shared premises in Member States – the so-called ‘EU Houses’ – and already in 25 of the 27 Member States our offices share space in the same building. As you know, we are in a pilot project in three of these European Houses – in Madrid, Dublin and Tallinn – with a common space which we call a ‘European public space’. We have been able to broaden the scope of our activities to engage with cultural activities, and scientific and youth events as well. We now have a first report on this pilot project with the European public spaces. It seems to be very positive and we will continue along these lines.

Justas Vincas Paleckis (PSE). – Thank you, Commissioner, for your comprehensive and clear answer. I am sure that you are an optimist by nature. On the other hand, your position in the Commission also calls for optimism. I am sure that you are counting on the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in all countries this year. I would like to ask what, in your opinion, would be the difference between the election campaign for the European Parliament in 2004 and next year, bearing in mind that most probably it will be after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty? 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 107

Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. − I shall be very blunt. I think that we also need to engage much more from the Commission’s side, through our representation offices, in mobilising voters, to ensure that we have a higher voter turn-out. We cannot be too cautious. I think we all have to say that we want European citizens to exercise their right to vote and this is how we will engage with Member States – again in partnership, not taking a political position but really just to mobilise voters. We are looking, together with the European Parliament, through the Interinstitutional Group for Information and Communication, at how we can do this. Parliament has already presented a well-crafted and elaborate plan for the EP elections and we will contribute to that in the best possible way, using all our tools and especially our representation offices. Together with Parliament we can make sure that we increase the voter turn-out.

Margarita Starkevičiūtė (ALDE). – (LT) I would like to point out that it is immensely important for an information company to have its material prepared in all the languages of the EU. I very much hope… I will speak in English. Maybe you cannot hear me, as I see the Commissioner is busy. I just wanted to say that it is difficult to receive information in Lithuanian, because I represent here. If you try to call the toll-free number for Europe Direct and ask a question in Lithuanian, you will be advised to wait for half an hour. It is difficult to find books in Lithuanian even here in the Parliament office for visitors, because the booklets are only available in the main languages. I do understand that there is a huge problem with interpretation and a financial problem, but maybe you have to set some priorities. Would you be so kind as to check how Europe Direct centres operate in different languages as, for example, Commissioner Kuneva is doing?

Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – I think the situation is quite clear, that if you have something direct to say to citizens they will listen and hear. We had a debate on European City Guides today but we got very little in terms of reaction from the Council and I think we need to bring more clear messages back to people about what we do here in the European Union and that we are actually here for them, not just to talk about them. I would prefer that Parliament’s representation took the lead at the Member State level rather than the Commission, but obviously I would say that, and I would urge respect and caution on the ratification process in Ireland. These are turbulent times and news emerging from the WTO is not assisting us in this regard. I think we have to be mindful of the genuine concerns of our voters.

Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. − Well, of course this is a constant struggle to make sure that we can provide information – that we can provide interpretation and translation in all 23 official languages. Sometimes we are not able to respond fully to that because we lack interpreters, for example, or we have not yet a full staff that can respond to this request, but I take note of your comment on that and we will look into it as well. I will also make a visit soon to Lithuania and I am sure I will hear more about this, but this is not due to a lack of will from the Commission. It is the starting point for any communication that you can communicate, hopefully, in your own language and understand what is being told, also in your own language. Therefore, we will continue to endeavour to make sure we provide all the necessary resources for doing so; therefore I fully respect your question and I think it is a very serious one. Well the other point was of course a comment and it is a fact that we have to start where citizens are. We have to respond to the questions they have, and of course the truth is that very rarely do they start by asking about the Treaty provisions or an amendment. They start by asking, What do you do about immigration? What do you do about climate change? How do you fight the problems that we see as cross-border problems, and how do you deal with that? And this is how we have to respond, and in an everyday language. I think that what has actually helped – and this is something I take credit for – is that we have now started with these citizens’ summaries to all the proposals that we present. Also in our work programme, we will have an accompanying citizens’ summary, and I see that this is very useful, and we have to continue along these lines. 108 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

President. − Question No 34 by Stavros Arnaoutakis (H-0316/08) Subject: Commission's Plan D for Dialogue, Democracy and Debate and 'Debate Europe' The Commission's Plan D for Dialogue, Democracy and Debate of October 2005 was a response to the EU's 'period of reflection' following the negative outcome of the referendums on the Constitution. Two and a half years later, does the Commission believe that it has effectively attained the objectives of its plan? If not, why not? What were the obstacles? As regards the Commission's recent communication on the 'Debate Europe' project (April 2008) to bring citizens closer to the Union and its institutions, can the Commission provide details concerning eligible expenditure, the amount that will be available per Member State and organisation, and the beneficiaries that will undertake the pan-European consultation projects with citizens? How will it provide a framework for cooperation among the EU's institutions and, in particular, with the European Parliament? How will it contribute towards setting up electronic networks in which MEPs and members of national and regional parliaments will participate? How will it create European public spaces in the capitals of the Member States? How will it become more active at local level?

Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. − I can say that Plan D played a key role in testing new methods for civil society organisations to involve citizens from all walks of life in debates on the future of Europe. It gave us examples of consultation that we never had before, inviting randomly-chosen citizens from all Member States to sit down together and discuss the European Union’s agenda. It was indeed a very exciting experience. One of the key lessons from this experience was that we need to strengthen the interface between citizens and EU decision-makers because, if we promise to listen better, what do we do with what we hear? This is what they want to know. We decided to prolong Plan D in the period leading up to the European parliamentary elections in June next year. This new phase is called ‘Debate Europe’. We have allocated EUR 7.2 million to Debate Europe, EUR 2 million of which to cofinance transnational projects and EUR 5.2 million to cofinance decentralised calls and actions supporting local projects administered by the representations. We do not decide in advance how much money is available per Member State or which beneficiaries will run these pan-European consultation projects. This depends on the results of the calls for proposals which the Commission is presently launching, both centrally and via our representations. We think that Debate Europe should also provide an effective framework for interinstitutional cooperation. One model was the concluding conference that was held on the first phase of Plan D last December. Here not only the Parliament, the Commission, but also the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee were involved. I think it proved complementary in addressing the specific citizens’ concerns and that this kind of cooperation should become the rule in the framework of Debate Europe, also at national or regional level. We also hope that we can engage Members of the European Parliament much more in these local and regional activities. I have just informed this group – the so-called ‘IGI’ – about the request from this Parliament to engage in a pilot information network. We have prepared and will present to the European Parliament the outcome of our project very soon: preparing for such a network, joining national and European parliamentarians and we hope also inviting journalists to take part in the debate on European issues. I have already mentioned the public spheres, the European public spaces, in the pilot project. Along these lines we can continue Plan D, learn from the experience so far and engage with citizens on a number of projects and models that we hopefully can establish permanently – not only as something that runs for six months or so – and ensure that we can involve decision-makers with European citizens in these ways.

Stavros Arnaoutakis (PSE). – (EL) Madam President, Commissioner, the problem for all of us lies in the fact that Europe is cut off from ordinary people. Despite all the good efforts made by the Commission and by us MEPs, we can clearly see that information is not reaching ordinary citizens.

I should like to ask which agencies will bring the citizen closer to Europe, as envisaged in the Debate Europe plan.

Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. − One of the new initiatives of course is that we need a European political culture, and that is what, as you know, we have presented. And this has been adopted by Parliament as well to engage in political foundations which can contribute to the debate. This is because 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 109

we need to have it in the regular political discussions at all levels: EU issues have to be integrated better. I think that this initiative, in allowing European political foundations, will help. I think we need to do it through the media, to have a European media reporting on EU affairs, and that is why we have a new internet strategy, we have a new audiovisual strategy, where we will be better equipped to put European issues in media reporting all over Europe. And I think we have to provide the meeting places, the public spaces, and this is where we have some pilot projects to allow for that. These transnational projects where we have engaged in consultation with citizens can, I think, give us some useful lessons as well as some useful experience that hopefully we will be able to put in place permanently one day. But we have to use all these channels to be effective in not cutting off, but in engaging citizens: listening to them, explaining to them and advocating what we are doing at EU level.

Georgios Papastamkos (PPE-DE). – (EL) Madam President, before the Internal Market Programme of 1992 there was the Cecchini Report on the costs of non-Europe. Does the European Commission intend to prepare a specific communication on the costs of non-Lisbon? What will be the cost to Europe if the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon is not completed?

Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. − This is always the most difficult thing: saying what happens if we do not do this or do that. We would like to present proactively the advantage, why we think that a new Treaty is needed. How can we be more effective? We have tried, on the Commission’s side, to designate and formulate questions and answers, our different background materials and what we have put on the internet in such a way that we argue proactively, on the offensive, as to why we need a new Treaty and what problems need to be solved. That has been our starting point but we have engaged, on the Commission’s side, as well in trying to explain what the price would be of not agreeing, because I think it will also influence people’s confidence and trust in whether we can really address the big problems and challenges that we see in front of us.

President. − Questions 35 to 39 will receive written answers. Question No 40 by Manuel Medina Ortega (H-0268/08) Subject: Restrictions on competition by sporting federations Given that the sporting federations of specific EU countries seek to impose rules on their members which restrict sportsmen’s and sports and women's possibilities with regard to contracts and freedom of movement, in clear violation of EU law, has the Commission studied the consequences of such practices from the point of view of freedom of competition?

Neelie Kroes, Member of the Commission. − A number of cases coming before the Community courts have confirmed applicability of EC rules to the sports sector. In the Walrave and Donà judgments, for example, the European Court of Justice confirmed that regulations based on nationality which limit the mobility of sportsmen do not conform with the principle of free movement of persons. In the Bosman judgment the Court examined two types of restrictions which it found to be incompatible with the free movement of persons. Firstly, it prohibits, on grounds of discrimination as to nationality, a UEFA rule which restricted the number of foreign players from EU Member States allowed to participate in national football championships. Secondly, it condemned as an obstacle to the free movement of persons the FIFA transfer rule requiring the payment of end-of-contract transfer fees in respect of intra-EU transfers of players who are nationals of an EU Member State.

The Piau and Meca Medina cases were the first Court judgments to apply EC competition rules to the sector. Since then the Commission has followed the methodological approach of that case-law in assessing whether a rule adopted by a sports federation or association infringes Articles 81 and 82. Therefore any sports rule which is capable of producing restrictive effects on competition has to be examined on a case-by-case basis in order to determine whether it pursues a legitimate objective. 110 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

At the same time the Commission must be satisfied that any anti-competitive effects resulting from such a rule are inherent to the pursuit of its objective and are proportionate to its achievement. The Commission looked at the issue of international football transfers when it investigated the legality of FIFA rules on transfer fees for players who were still under contract. That investigation was closed in 2002 after FIFA committed itself to modifying its transfer rules on the basis of certain principles which aimed at facilitating transfers. In the Commission’s White Paper on Sport, which was adopted on 11 July 2007, issues such as free movement of sportspersons were also exhaustively addressed, especially in the accompanying document entitled ‘The EU and Sport: Background and Context’. In the same legislative package the Commission adopted the Pierre de Coubertin action plan which advocates sport-related action to be taken at EU level and contains a number of proposals to be implemented and/or supported by the Commission in numerous areas of sport. One such area concerns the free movement of persons, with the goal being to combat discrimination based on nationality in all sports. This goal shall be achieved through political dialogue, through recommendations, structured dialogue with stakeholders and, when appropriate, through infringement procedures initiated by the Commission against Member States. In addition, the Commission applies EC competition rules to sport organisations in so far as those organisations regulate economic activities. In doing so the Commission takes into account the specificity of sport.

Manuel Medina Ortega (PSE). – (ES) Madam President, thank you very much, Commissioner, for your extensive and very comprehensive answer to my question. In short, as a complementary observation to the explanation given by the Commissioner, I infer that at the moment the Commission is not thinking of adopting any legislative measures, as it considers that the current legislation, including the Treaties and the case-law, is sufficient, and that therefore the path that is going to be taken is that of informal agreements with the federations, codes of conduct, and so on and so forth. The Commission does not think that it is necessary at this time to have any additional measures, so all that is needed is simply to apply the existing legislation.

Neelie Kroes, Member of the Commission. − That is correct. The European Court of Justice – and the honourable Member has already felt the direction I am moving in – has ruled in the Meca Medina judgment that the compatibility of sporting rules with EC competition law cannot be assessed by way of declaring certain categories of rules a priori exempt from the application of EC competition law. The Commission will therefore have to continue applying competition rules on a case-by case basis, referring to its adopted decisions and the existing case-law. Finally, the Meca Medina judgment provides a clear methodological framework in that respect. In order to assess whether a rule breached EU competition rules, its effect must be proportionate to the legitimate genuine sporting interest pursued, so this proportionality test can only be applied on a case-by-case basis.

Manolis Mavrommatis (PPE-DE). – (EL) Madam President, Commissioner, in all the Member States, the national sports federations, particularly the football federations, complain vociferously on the basis of international sports federation statutes (FIFA, UEFA, etc.) every time their activities are investigated by the government. While we recognise the independence of the federations, does the EU agree with statutes that infringe and are considered to be above national legislation and a country’s constitution?

Richard Corbett (PSE). – Does the Commission agree that the UEFA home-grown players’ scheme is compatible with the Treaty? It encourages football clubs to have a proportion of their players coming up through their junior teams and their youth academies without a link to nationality and that therefore, quite unlike the FIFA scheme of 5+6 – which is based on nationality and would clearly be illegal – the UEFA scheme is something that is proportionate, legitimate and will force clubs to invest in training their young players rather than just relying on their financial muscle in the international transfer market.

Neelie Kroes, Member of the Commission. − I will try to combine the two questions as it is an area that clearly shares the same type of thinking, the goal being to combat discrimination based on nationality in all sports. I think that is the main thing and that is a principle, so to say. That goal should be achieved through political 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 111

dialogue, recommendations, structural dialogue with stakeholders and, when appropriate, through infringement procedures. Therefore, I think that what we have to take into account is that this competition line that I was explaining earlier is quite clear and that it should not be attacked by other ways of thinking.

President. − Question No 41 by Giovanna Corda (H-0269/08) Subject: Price rises and competition Major price rises have been recorded in recent months in many Member States, particularly for foodstuffs, which has severely reduced the European public’s purchasing power. Numerous observers have suggested that, besides the increase in the price of raw materials, there have been some excessive mark-ups by distribution channels and, moreover, possible breaches of free competition. Can the Commission state whether it has any permanent indicators that can alert it to an explosion in certain consumer prices, and also whether any investigations have been conducted recently into distribution channels, following the sudden price rises recorded in certain Member States?

Neelie Kroes, Member of the Commission. − The Commission is of course concerned about the recent wholesale and retail price increases in food and food products. This has implications for the people of Europe and, even more seriously, implications for billions of others around the world. Indeed, EU food price inflation accelerated in the last quarter of 2007. The observed price increases at consumer level reflect recent developments in product value, cost and profit along the food supply chain. It should be noted that prices for major agricultural raw commodities had been rising for several months and continuously breaking record levels. That development mainly resulted from a combination of structural drivers: a steady rise in global food demand, the emergence of the biofuel market – only for a very small part – and more short-term factors such as adverse climate conditions, which provoked a decrease in the output volume of cereals in most of the EU Member States in 2007 and the restrictive export policy of some key world market suppliers and in general an increasing engagement of investment funds in agricultural commodity markets. Nevertheless, it should be underlined that prices of raw materials do not constitute a strictly proportional part of food prices, especially as it becomes more processed. Thus some other components of the sale price, and I am thinking of energy and labour margins, have also influenced recent increases in food prices in the European Union. It must be noted that these price increases are not necessarily linked to a deficiency in the application of competition rules. As the honourable Member knows, the primary objective of EC competition policy is to make markets work better for the benefit of consumers in the EU. As mentioned in several replies to recent parliamentary questions, the Commission, together with the national competition authorities forming the European Competition Network, monitors markets in order to prevent and sanction distortions of competition to the extent that these distortions can potentially harm consumers. The Commission only acts when it is better placed than national competition authorities to take action. They will act first, but when they are not in a position to do so, we will jump in. Indeed, since the issues related to the retail sector are frequently national in scope, the Member States are well placed to address them. However, the Commission would like to reiterate that, should any specific breaches of competition rules be confirmed and supported by legal and economic evidence, we will not hesitate to take action. It is of course important to consider all relevant factors affecting these markets and the Commission will continue to monitor consumer prices, retail market concentration and any allegations of anti-competitive conduct. The Commission considers market monitoring to be a very important task. In the framework of the Single Market Review, the Commission will analyse the possible reasons for the malfunctioning of retail services, seen both from consumers’ and suppliers’ perspectives. The levels and differences of consumer prices between the Member States are also monitored in the annual report of the Consumer Markets Scoreboard. The first edition – as you are aware – of the Scoreboard was published at the beginning of 2008 and the exercise will be carried out yearly.

Prices are among the main screening indicators. Some price differences, especially in the case of non-tradable goods and services, may clearly be due to differences of income between the Member States. Nevertheless, particularly large differences between the Member States may suggest the need for further scrutiny. Additionally, the Commission will touch upon the issue of market power in the distribution sector in the framework of a High Level Group on the competitiveness of the agrifood industry. That initiative will be 112 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

launched by the Commission in order to analyse the food industry, which in recent years has faced new risks and challenges which question the sector’s competitiveness. The Commission will also in the weeks to come formally transmit a response to the European Parliament’s written declaration on investigating and remedying the abuse of power by large supermarkets in the EU. The Commission’s response will provide, among other aspects, certain clarifications in relation to buyer-power-related issues.

Giovanna Corda (PSE). – (FR) As you know, this morning in Kehl, the French and German consumer ministers met to discuss the price differences between the two countries. These discrepancies can reach 30% for some high-consumption products. Among the causes discussed, they mentioned the differences in retail trading structures, and in particular the imperfect competition in some countries. Internet sales should allow consumers to take advantage of these differences by buying from the most advantageous countries. However, mail order on the Internet sometimes poses problems. For example, French people cannot buy from some German sites. Do you intend to take appropriate measures so that the European internal market will finally be a reality for citizens?

Neelie Kroes, Member of the Commission. − I am absolutely aware of the importance of your question and of getting in line with one single market. You can be absolutely sure that the Commission will do its utmost to make it a real single market also in the retail sphere.

Danutė Budreikaitė (ALDE). – (LT) From your report I understand that the Directorate-General for Competition works in cooperation with the competition authorities in the Member States. However, we citizens can see certain agreements taking place, resulting in price increases in all the countries simultaneously, yet the competition authorities fail to find any transgression. What would you say from your experience – is it a case of a lack of qualification in the Member States or one of abuse?

Neelie Kroes, Member of the Commission. − So far the answer is a clear ‘no’, but we are aware that it is calling for our attention, and not only our attention, in terms of monitoring what is going on. What we have done is to put it on the agenda in the European competition network, and we are gathering information from all the Member States that have experience – some have inquiries, others are analysing, others are just trying to find out what is going wrong in the retail area. France, Germany, the UK, Belgium – they all have different approaches to today’s situation. So far, there is no reason to say that there is a cartel. As soon as we become aware of a cartel we will act, I can assure you, but, by the way, I think it is not that bad, as national competition authorities are active and following the whole situation in this sector.

President. − Questions 35 to 39 will receive written answers. Question No 44 by Bernd Posselt (H-0286/08) Subject: Accession negotiations with Does the Commission think that the accession negotiations with Croatia can be completed by the end of the year? What is the exact timetable for the rest of the year? Question No 45 by Brian Crowley (H-0308/08) Subject: Progress of the accession of Croatia into the European Union Can the European Commission give a statement outlining the state of play with regard to Croatia's application to accede into the European Union? Question No 46 by Michl Ebner (H-0315/08) Subject: Conclusion of the accession negotiations with Croatia

Since the opening of accession negotiations with Croatia the country has already made substantial progress, leading to the opening of many negotiation chapters, and is well on the way to meeting the benchmarks for opening and closing further chapters. Above all, there have been positive developments in connection with the alignment of Croatian law with EU standards, protection for minorities and efforts to bring about judicial reform. In addition, through its recent decision not to introduce the Ecological and Fishing Protection Zone Croatia has cleared the way for faster progress in the accession negotiations. These welcome developments 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 113

are acknowledged in Parliament's report on Croatia's 2007 progress report, paragraphs 31 and 32 of which call for enhanced support for Croatia from the EU, and in particular from the Commission. How will the Commission step up the support it provides? Provided that Croatia meets the relevant criteria, will the Commission put forward, in autumn 2008, a provisional timetable for the conclusion of the accession negotiations in 2009?

Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, Mr Posselt, Mr Crowley and Mr Ebner have all asked about the state of play of accession negotiations with Croatia and I can respond to them jointly. These negotiations with Croatia are progressing well overall. So far negotiations have been opened on 18 chapters out of 35 and we have closed two of these chapters. As regards opening benchmarks, 11 sets of benchmarks have been set. The Commission has assessed the benchmarks as being met in seven of these 11 cases. In these cases our recommendations are now under discussion among the Member States in the Council or negotiation positions are being prepared. In the remaining chapters, such as competition policy and public procurement, opening benchmarks were already set by the Union in the first half of 2006 – that is two years ago. But Croatia has been slow in taking the necessary measures to meet these opening benchmarks. Croatia is still working on opening benchmarks for the chapter on the judiciary and fundamental rights, where there are many difficult challenges in areas such as judicial reform, the fight against corruption and refugee return. While Croatia has done plenty of good work aligning with the key 16 chapters where we have closing benchmarks, Croatia has not done enough at this stage to meet all closing benchmarks in any of these 16 chapters. With the remaining conditions still to be met by Croatia it unrealistic to assume that accession negotiations could be concluded this year in 2008. Croatia has nonetheless made good progress overall and therefore 2008 could be a decisive year in Croatia’s EU accession negotiations. Provided a number of conditions are met by Croatia, the Commission will in this autumn’s enlargement package present an indicative timetable or a conditional roadmap for the conclusion of other technical negotiations in the course of 2009. The first condition to be met is that Croatia should meet all opening benchmarks by June this year, i.e. next month. Secondly, Croatia must comply with all legal obligations under the stabilisation and accession agreement and it must also continue to comply with the general conditionalities of the stabilisation and accession process. And thirdly, Croatia needs urgently to improve its management of EU financial assistance under the and IPA programmes. The President of the Commission will continue to provide substantial financial and technical assistance for Croatia in order to help it fulfil the requirements of EU membership. Once sufficient progress has been made by Croatia in meeting opening or closing benchmarks, the Commission will prepare and submit in good time the necessary recommendations to the Member States for the positions to be taken in the intergovernmental conference. So, in a nutshell, ultimately the pace of progress of Croatia towards the European Union will be determined by its own ability to meet all necessary conditions. Thus we can work and progress on the basis of Croatia’s own merits.

Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Commissioner, you know my position - that Croatia should have become a Member long ago, if justice prevailed. However, I am not expressing my personal point of view here, but that of this House. Parliament said that negotiations should be completed by 2009 at the latest. At its meeting in Croatia a few weeks ago, the Joint Parliamentary Committee said that all chapters should be opened under the Slovenian Presidency and closed under the French or, at the latest, the Czech Presidency. Does the Commission believe that this schedule is realistic and what is it doing to speed things up?

Brian Crowley (UEN). – Madam President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for his response. Two points. First of all, with regard to the judicial and fundamental rights chapter where there appears to be a lot of difficulties concerning the negotiations: how best can we help Croatia to advance on that side of it?

Secondly, concerning the distribution of the PHARE programme money and the management of those monies: where are the biggest pitfalls that the Croatia financial management system has to overcome? 114 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

Thirdly, going back to what my colleague Bernd Posselt said, we thought there was an agreement that this would be concluded very quickly. If there are still 17 chapters which have yet to be opened for negotiation, how can we proceed at the pace that we want to see happening?

Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. − Thank you for these very pertinent and important follow-up questions. The Commission is working with Croatia as it would with any other candidate country so that we follow the negotiating framework adopted in unanimity by the Council and by the Member States. It is our task and responsibility to monitor progress in meeting the benchmarks on the basis of our rather new benchmark methodology, which was created and adopted at the end of 2006 – with very strong support by Parliament – in order to improve the quality of the EU accession process. This means that once a country is able to open one benchmark and then close the same benchmark it has proved that it has made sufficient progress in the issues concerned. I give you one very concrete example: that is the shipbuilding sector in Croatia. We expect that Croatia will provide a very concrete restructuring strategy for the whole sector, as well as for all the individual shipyards concerned in this sector. There was a meeting recently between the Deputy Prime Minister of Croatia and my colleague Neelie Kroes, the European Commissioner for Competition, to scrutinise the state of affairs in this regard. We are still waiting for somewhat more convincing efforts by the Croatian authorities to show that Croatia will be able to restructure its shipbuilding sector properly so that we can move forward in the field of competition policy where state aid is a very critical benchmark.

This is to prove that it really is in the hands of the Croatian Government and the authorities to meet the benchmarks. We always knew that some of the benchmarks were more challenging than others and the Commission has encouraged Croatia to work diligently in order to meet these difficult benchmarks, especially in the area of judiciary reform that Mr Crowley referred to, as well as in the other area I mentioned, the shipbuilding sector. Concerning judiciary reform, we are providing legal and technical assistance for Croatia under the institution-building part of the instrument for pre-accession. We are encouraging twinning exercises and of course we provide our own expertise for Croatia. Member States are also providing their peer reviews which are important in order to benchmark whether or not Croatia is making good progress in this field. So all in all, we are doing well overall in the negotiations. The pace of the negotiations essentially depends on the pace of these critical reforms in order for Croatia to meet first the opening and then closing benchmarks.

President. − Question No 47 by Dimitrios Papadimoulis (H-0295/08) Subject: Progress of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) towards accession to the European Union At a press conference held at the NATO Summit in Brussels on 5 March 2008, the Commissioner responsible for enlargement, Mr Rehn, stated that the failure of Greece and FYROM to reach an agreement on the name of the latter would adversely affect FYROM's accession to the European Union. The EU wishes to encourage the continuation of negotiations under the auspices of the UN in order to find a mutually acceptable solution in the near future to the question of that country's name. What measures will the Commission, therefore, take to facilitate the resumption of negotiations and find a mutually acceptable solution?

Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, please allow me to clarify that on 5 March I did not attend a NATO Summit. I might have wanted to but I did not attend the NATO Summit as is mistakenly indicated in the question. Instead, I took part in the meeting of the Commission – our weekly meeting – and in that meeting we adopted a Commission communication entitled, ‘The Western Balkans: enhancing the European perspective’. Subsequently I made the statement at the press conference on this issue to which the honourable Member is referring. In that context, in the press conference, I noted that the main issue was consuming much political energy. I encouraged the leaders of both countries to find a formula which is acceptable to both sides. I have done this publicly and privately. In reply to a question I explained that the decisions relating to the EU accession process are taken by Member States on the basis of unanimity. In this context I expressed my concern that the lack of a solution to the main issue could have a negative effect on the country’s accession process. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 115

I can assure you that the Commission will continue to call on the parties to engage constructively to resolve the main issue. However, the Commission has no competences, no powers on such measures and therefore efforts should continue under the auspices of the United Nations within the framework of the two important UN Executive Council resolutions which date from the year 1993.

Dimitrios Papadimoulis (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Madam President, Commissioner, thank you for your answer, which confirms the statement you made in Brussels. I also thanked you in my question on 5 March at the press conference on the matter. Given that in a resolution on the accession prospects of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) the European Parliament has recently recognised the need to speed up negotiations in order to reach a generally accepted solution, let me ask you this: do you intend, together with Parliament, and by exercising your powers, to take any steps before your report is drawn up in the autumn?

Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. − We continue to encourage both countries concerned to find a solution to this long-standing – I should say too long-standing – problem. We have full confidence in the United Nations Mediator, Mr Nimitz, who has a clear mandate to facilitate talks between the two parties in the framework of the two critical resolutions of the UN Security Council from 1993. The Commission cannot therefore play the role of mediator. We have no powers, no competences, but we encourage both sides to take a very constructive approach, to engage and finally find a solution to this matter.

Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Commissioner, the Commission has a responsibility: it is the guardian of the treaties. The Interim Agreement states that bilateral issues must not be allowed to become a barrier to accession. I wanted to ask you to confirm that and to ask whether you have observed any efforts on the part of the Macedonian Government to resolve the issues and whether, in your opinion, Macedonia has made progress in recent months.

Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. − In my view you are indeed right that the country has made good progress for the past half-year or so in terms of some critical reforms such as the judiciary reform and the reform of public administration, as well as on the implementation of the police law. In fact, in the March communication we have set eight benchmarks based on key criteria, key priorities, of the Accession Partnership which reflect the necessary reforms we expect the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia will be able to undertake, thereby achieving sufficient progress to allow us in our autumn report to propose a recommendation to start accession negotiations. This will depend upon concrete results in the reform work and we will of course reflect that in our progress report which is currently under preparation. I would like to point out that in order to start accession negotiations, in order for the Commission recommendation to be accepted, in the Council there is a requirement of unanimity of all EU Member States and therefore, even though we see this as a bilateral issue, we have to take this into account as a political reality. As regards our recommendation, that depends solely on the progress achieved by the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on the implementation of the reforms on the ground.

President. − Question No 48 by Philip Claeys (H-0298/08) Subject: European funding for the Turkish army in Media reports allege that the EU has provided the Turkish army with funding to the tune of EUR 13 million. Can the Commission confirm that the Turkish army in fact been financed out of European funds? If so, which funds and projects were involved and over how long a period? How much money did the Turkish army receive in total? Who took the initiative of authorising this funding? Does the Commission plan to continue funding the Turkish army in future?

Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. − I am very glad to respond to this question because I can do it very briefly. There is no fund provided by the European Union to the Turkish army in Cyprus as suggested in the title of the question by the honourable Member. Under the pre-accession programme, IPA, the European Union supports in a project which is called ‘Civic training for conscripts’, and this project indeed is run in Turkey, not in Cyprus. The purpose of this 116 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

project is, through the Turkish armed forces, to educate conscripts who are doing their military service on the issues of human rights, gender equality, women’s rights, children’s rights, protection of the environment, general health care and the fight against drug addiction: in my view all very worthy causes, and this is what this programme called ‘Civic training for conscripts’ in Turkey is aimed at achieving.

Philip Claeys (NI). – (NL) I should like to thank the Commissioner for his response, but I have two brief questions in this regard. First and foremost, how does the Commissioner explain the broadcasting of such affairs by the press? This information came from a press review and I believe that it was stated in a Turkish-Cypriot publication. Secondly, how can the Commission ensure that the Turkish troops occupying Cyprus do not somehow come by a portion of the funds and thus that these funds are not being used for anything other than their intended purpose?

Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. − It is indeed important that we correct myths with facts and that we correct misunderstandings by providing concrete and objective factual information. Therefore, I am very grateful that the honourable Member has asked this question. In fact, by answering your question which I just did, I am sure that we can now provide facts which will correct these misunderstandings in the media which were referred to by Mr Claeys. As I said, this project is run in Turkey by the Turkish armed forces and therefore this should clarify the point made by the honourable Member concerning where this project and programme is being run.

President. − Questions which have not been answered for lack of time will be answered in writing (see Annex). That concludes Question Time. (The sitting was suspended at 19.55 and resumed at 21.00)

IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTA Vice-President

16. Announcement by the President: see Minutes

17. Composition of political groups: see Minutes

18. Composition of Parliament: see Minutes

19. Mobile satellite services (MSS) (debate)

President. – The next item is the report (A6-0077/2008) by Mrs Hall, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on the selection and authorisation of systems providing mobile satellite services (COM(2007)0480 – C6-0257/2007 – 2007/0174(COD)).

Viviane Reding, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I first of all should thank Parliament for having addressed the Commission proposal as a matter of urgency and I know this is not easy at all. Parliament has done more than the impossible in order to get there, and it has done well. Mobile satellite services constitute a sector with high potential for Europe with applications ranging from high-speed internet access, through mobile broadcasting, to emergency services. The development of a competitive internal market for mobile satellite services will produce significant economies of scale and a more efficient use of spectrum, and all this for the benefit of businesses and consumers throughout Europe. However, timing is of the essence if we do not want to miss the current window of opportunity for mobile satellite systems. This initiative puts in place a pan-European, binding selection process of specific satellite operators, and it is very innovative indeed in several respects. I am therefore very grateful for the efforts made by the rapporteur, 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 117

Mrs Hall and for those made by all the other colleagues in the European Parliament to promote consensus in Parliament and in the Council within what remains a very short time-frame. There are many amendments in the report aimed at including in the legislative decision details initially meant to be addressed during the implementation of the selection process. These include a detailed description of the selection criteria, the respective weighting of these criteria, the duration of the authorisations to be delivered by the competent national authorities and so on and so forth. In normal terms such level of detail is not present in legislative texts. But the Commission is ready to accept the amendments by Parliament. These amendments will of course contribute to a level of transparency which is even higher than the one in the proposal, and in addition the main elements of the proposal, in particular the competitive nature of the selection mechanism, the basic structure of the selection process and the main milestones and selection criteria, have remained largely unchanged. Despite these additional details, Parliament and the Council have asked for specific comitology procedures for several steps in the implementation of the selection programme. These procedures, which can be either regulatory or with scrutiny, are, I have to say, less flexible and more time-consuming than what the Commission has proposed. While the Commission is ready to show flexibility on this, and to accept these amendments, it should also be clear that this might have an impact on the overall timing of the selection process. This is of the essence and that is why I really call on all parties involved in the implementation to show flexibility in the practical arrangements that will be needed in order to bring the selection of satellite operators to a successful end as soon as possible.

In this sense I also invite the Council to make all necessary efforts to finalise the agreement before the June TELCO Council so that a decision can be taken. So I know that there is a lot of work which has to be done now by our legal specialists in the Commission, Parliament and, most of all, in the Council. In conclusion, the Commission can support the amendments put forward by Mrs Hall. They correspond to the Slovenian presidency’s compromise text and they pave the way for a first-reading arrangement. I am very confident that this sound compromise will receive broad support from Parliament.

Fiona Hall, rapporteur. − Mr President, I want to begin by thanking everyone who worked on the MSS decision. I say that not just as the usual courtesy, but because the decision has come to plenary this week as a first-reading agreement thanks to much support from my parliamentary colleagues and the help of the Commission in supplying additional text. I would also like to give warm thanks to the Slovenian presidency, who shared Parliament’s determination to reach an early agreement in the interests of European competitiveness. In February 2007, Member States agreed to make radio frequency bands in the 2 GHz region available for a harmonised approach to mobile satellite services in order to avoid interference and fragmentation of the internal market and open up the possibility for European MSS technology to become globally competitive. The purpose of today’s MSS decision is to select and authorise the operators of these pan-European mobile satellite services. In the debate and negotiation on this decision, the differences to overcome have been institutional and geographic, rather than party political. Firstly, MEPs were concerned that in the Commission’s draft proposal there were elements of the selection and authorisation process which were of a political, rather than a purely technical, nature and that it was therefore not appropriate to use comitology to decide the details. In particular, MEPs and ministers from Member States on the periphery of the EU were very concerned that the selection criteria might favour operators who could only provide a service covering the centre of Europe. MEPs were also concerned that the selection criteria might not reflect Parliament’s frequently expressed commitment to public interest services and to the inclusion of rural and less-developed regions. These difficulties were resolved by bringing into the text detailed and transparent wording on the weighting to be given to geographic coverage, public safety and protection services and the range of services provided to consumers in rural and remote areas.

Particularly important was the compromise reached before the vote in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, stipulating that all applicants must commit to services covering at least 50% of the population and at least 60% of the aggregate land area of each Member State. While this falls short of the 100% coverage which I know some colleagues would have preferred, I think it offers a realistic compromise given the technical and economic constraints that the industry is under. Furthermore, Member States retain the right 118 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

to use the spectrum for other purposes where and when it lies outside the mobile satellite service area, and Member States may impose emergency service use of mobile satellite systems during major disasters. To conclude, I think we have reached a very good and swift agreement which will benefit both citizens and industry. I trust that the final signatures can be put on the deal in June to allow the first call for applications to go out before the summer, and I hope that, next time Member States and the Commission decide they need a pan-EU service in a particular frequency band, they will look to the MSS decision as a model of how to reach a speedy agreement by involving Parliament in the detail of the text.

Ruth Hieronymi, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Culture and Education. − (DE) Mr President, I too, would first like to thank Mrs Hall for her extremely ambitious efforts to achieve a timely result for this difficult report. She did it! The report was difficult because it had to establish rules for the special case of Europe-wide mobile satellite services before the Telecom package was revised. It is to Parliament’s credit, and most especially to the credit of its rapporteur, that we have succeeded in finding ways to make a like this, which nevertheless makes a sufficient degree of transparency possible and actually links exceptional decisions to exceptional circumstances. I am very glad about this, therefore, and can say on behalf of the Committee on Culture and Education that we support the result that has been achieved, because it includes three points that are important in our committee’s view: firstly, the decision respects the competence of the Member States to decide how to allocate frequencies. Secondly, the decision is also linked to the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, and thirdly, this will also strengthen media pluralism and cultural diversity within these services. All we can do now is hope – and this is our wish – that this work is also worthwhile and that there really will be pan-European mobile satellite services, as this decision leads us to expect.

Jean-Pierre Audy, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my first words will be to congratulate my fellow Member Mrs Hall, the rapporteur on this complex matter, for her willingness to cooperate with the rapporteurs from the political Groups. I include in this my excellent colleague Mrs Niebler, Chair of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, the committee responsible, which does a superb job. The compromise proposed is satisfactory. It is the fruit of long discussions that we had with the Slovenian Presidency, which I congratulate on the quality of its work, and should enable us to reach an agreement at first reading so that mobile satellite services will be provided quickly. This matter is a great European success, and well done, Commissioner, because in the future, systems supplying mobile satellite services, such as high-speed data transfer or mobile television, will be selected at European level. This is evidence of efficiency, better economy and Community preference. We are aware of the compromise. We have come a long way, and I welcome the fact that the Commission has accepted an increase in the services provided to citizens, as each system will have to cover 60% of the territory of the Union from the start and the whole of the territory at the latest seven years after the launch. I am pleased that the major criteria for the coverage required was territory and not solely population, which means that our rural and outlying areas can be served. This is something that is close to my heart, as I come from a rural region that took a long time, and is still taking time, to benefit from the technological infrastructures as have the large urban areas, and it is about equal opportunities for citizens wherever they are in European Union territory. Once the text has been adopted in Parliament and approved by the Council, I ask the Commission to do everything to quickly establish mobile satellite services according to reasonable pricing that needs to be monitored. These services are major financial and technological challenges, but they mean that Europe has the opportunity to equip itself with an advanced sector in terms of satellite services. Finally, I hope that the boldness and brilliance of our European manufacturers will enable them to submit to this political compromise, proving once again their huge capacity for technological adaptation.

Catherine Trautmann, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, finally we have arrived at the eve of the vote in Parliament regarding the S band, which has been so highly anticipated by the operators and by the majority of the Member States. We note the significance of these 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 119

frequencies, which so far have not been used and whose capacity to transmit mobile television, data or emergency services is now recognised, and which Parliament has expressed its particular commitment to. It is true that the method cannot be optimal. This somewhat ‘impressionist’ approach, which has consisted of establishing a frequency plan in small brush strokes, has shown some limitations. We will seek to remedy this when we examine the Telecommunications Regulatory Package. With regard to mobile satellite services, fundamentally the final result offers a balance between political ambition and economic feasibility. In particular, Parliament insisted on the degree of geographical coverage in order to protect against the risk of a digital gulf being created between Member States, but also within them. The weighing up of the criteria for the ‘beauty contest’ is a true reflection of the respective weight of the concerns of Parliament and of European citizens, in particular in relation to public services. Finally, the possibility of to some extent requisitioning the frequencies allocated in the event of a disaster is in line with the current discussions within the ITU, where the contribution of telecommunications to protecting human life was examined last year at the global conference. As shadow rapporteur for the Socialist Group, I must stress how pleasant it was to work with Mrs Hall, our rapporteur, whose utter determination was clear. I also commend the Slovenian Presidency for its effective contribution. It was given a baptism of fire by being faced with a really thorny issue. Finally, I would like to commend the willingness of our Commissioner, Mrs Reding, the technical cooperation between the Commission services, the Secretariat of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, and the legal and language experts from the two joint legislators who enabled us to produce a quality text. I am also happy to have chaired the two trialogues that helped to clarify the points to be debated and resolved. Parliament was conciliatory in the finalisation of the agreement with the Council in view of the short timescale in relation to satellite programming and the economic and industrial stakes. The financial investment to be made is sizeable and risky, and we all want it to succeed. This is why I am concluding this intervention by calling on the Presidency and the Commission so that we can hear them make a commitment that the timescales for the adoption of the text and the publication of the call for candidates before the summer will be respected.

Jaromír Kohlíček, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union is at present one of the key partners in spatial matters. The ambitious plan to launch a satellite system for the Galileo navigation satellite system is sufficient proof of this. All satellite-based systems should use in communications the same radio spectrum from 1980 to 2010 MHz and 2170 to 2200 MHz. It makes sense that this resolution is trying to unify the fragmented regulations of the individual countries in a uniform framework, and to set up a unified operating methodology for communication frequency assignment. For the given satellite, the frequencies should be the same for all EU Member States. This should both eliminate harmful interference and at the same time enable uniform development of this part of the sector, namely satellite communication. Taking into account that in the area of satellite communication the European Union at present covers 40% of the world market, we can clearly see that a common non-discriminatory policy can significantly strengthen the important role of the Union in this sector. In our opinion, the proposed solution will lead to much better development of the technical and economic communication elements. Only a uniform solution across all 27 states can overcome the existing national administrative barriers. This sector offers opportunities for qualified labour and it is therefore advisable to support this sector. The entire GUE/NGL Group supports this resolution.

Nikolaos Vakalis (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by saying how proud I am of the work we are doing in the European Parliament on the report under debate. This is not just a matter of new technologies. We are talking about the important role played by a whole range of new technological applications, both in strengthening the social, economic and territorial cohesion of the EU, and in transforming its conventional economy into a knowledge-based economy. In particular, the message we are giving to European citizens today, ladies and gentlemen, is that within seven years of implementing the MSS systems, every last inhabitant of the most remote village in the Union will be able to enjoy satellite and mobile terrestrial services. This means very fast Internet connection, mobile television, satellite telephone, and above all, state protection and relief in the event of natural disasters. 120 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

We have fought hard in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy to ensure that no regions should be excluded from these services. If this happened, the digital gap between the metropolitan centres and outlying regions within each Member State, and generally between different regions of the EU, would widen. To conclude, I sincerely congratulate and thank the rapporteur, Mrs Hall, and the shadow rapporteurs for the campaign they have fought in Parliament and with the Council to ensure that these very important requirements are included in the final legislative text on which we will be voting tomorrow.

Atanas Paparizov (PSE). – (BG) Mr. President, I would like to congratulate Mrs. Hall, the rapporteur, for her efforts to ensure that all EU citizens from all Member States have access to mobile satellite services. Thanks to the efforts of this House, the criterion for pan-European coverage has the biggest weight. Other criteria will also include whether systems offered by operators provide services in the outermost and sparsely populated areas or other services of general public interest such as civil protection and disaster recovery. The resolution is a basis to create real opportunities for individual and corporate service users from countries such as mine, the Republic of Bulgaria, which are not located centrally within the territory of the EU, to have access to pan-European mobile satellite services, including access to broadband Internet, mobile multimedia applications, services related to civil protection in the case of natural and industrial disasters and, of course, this facilitates improvement in the competitiveness of countries lying in the periphery of the European Union.

Anni Podimata (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, as the radio frequency spectrum is a public good, market forces alone cannot secure the world of communication for everyone. A dual approach of politics and consumer economy is needed. When apportioning the spectrum one must focus on its social, cultural and economic value, rather than just increasing the MSS providers’ income or government revenue. Commissioner, I admit that at first I was disappointed with the criteria for selecting MSS providers, and particularly with the paltry 60% geographical cover of the Union, in view of the pan-European geographical cover and pan-European provision of mobile satellite services. In countries such as Greece that have many mountains and islands, it is difficult to invest in fibre optic networks everywhere, which is why MSS provision assumes great importance. With MSS, it is possible to provide complete cover throughout the Member States. This facilitates viable economic development, in line with the aims of the reformed Lisbon Strategy. I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Hall, and the shadow rapporteur from my group, Mrs Trautmann. Thanks to their contribution and effective cooperation with the Council, we have arrived at a distinctly improved motion for a resolution.

Zdzisław Kazimierz Chmielewski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, the objective of the European Commission’s decision that Parliament is assessing is to put forward harmonised principles for access to mobile satellite services in all Member States. The need for Community solutions is obviously justified by the cross-border nature of satellite communications. We must not, however, forget the particular significance of this solution, which requires us to maintain due care during the subsequent procedure. We must take special care that the frequency bands in question constitute a perceptible supplement to land-based mobile communications networks, chiefly in areas threatened by the phenomenon known as the digital divide. We must not simply allow excessive fragmentation of use of this section of the spectrum, and, what is worse, squander the anticipated economic benefits.

Viviane Reding, Member of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, quite simply thank you, thank you to Parliament and thank you to its rapporteur, Mrs Hall. I think that they have been worthy of the satellites sector, which is an economic sector, but above all they have been worthy of the European citizens who will benefit from mobile satellite services: telephone, Internet, television and also security services, especially in the event of a disaster. Here, therefore, we have a service that is going to be very important for our great Europe. The Commission, meanwhile, is going to do its best to publish a call for candidates as soon as possible, and as soon as possible means before the end of the summer.

I therefore ask the Council to move quickly, very quickly, so that the Ministers can decide by June, so that, afterwards, we will be able to put everything in place so that the decisions that will be taken tomorrow by the European Parliament at what I must say is a breathtaking pace can be put into practice in the interests of our industry and our citizens. Thank you for this exemplary work! 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 121

Fiona Hall, rapporteur. − Mr President, it was very good indeed to hear the Commissioner say that the Commission has every intention of moving forward on this before the summer. That would be very welcome news, both to citizens and to the industry itself. Otherwise, I would simply like to thank everybody for their comments in this debate and to say once again that this would not have been possible if it had not been for the extremely good level of cooperation between everybody who has been involved in negotiating this decision.

President. – The debate is closed. The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.

20. Women and science (debate)

President. – The next item is the report (A6-0165/2008) by Mrs Thomsen, on behalf of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, on women and science (2007/2206(INI)).

Stavros Dimas, Member of the Commission. − (EL) Mr President, let me first of all express my gratitude to the European Parliament and especially to the rapporteur, Mrs Thomsen, for their support for the Commission policy on women and science. I should also like to thank the rapporteur from the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, Mr Dover, for his constructive approach. We agree with Mrs Thomsen’s explanatory statement that the elimination of gender discrimination in science heralds a new era of excellence for European research and academic growth, and a boost for innovation. The Commission is well aware that there is a serious imbalance between female and male researchers. The latest available statistics show that whereas women represent more than 50% of graduates in all university departments, only 15% of professors are women. In the field of science, engineering and technology, the corresponding figures are 34% female graduates and 9% female professors. The Commission agrees that this is a serious waste of talent and resources, as it is contrary to the principle of equality. Since 1999, the European Commission has been attending to the issue of the lack of women in research. In the Fifth Framework Programme, the Commission gave financial support to studies and projects in the field of women and science. Since 2003, the Commission has also been publishing the ‘She Figures’ statistics, which show the participation of women in European research. The next issue will be published in 2009. More to the point, in her report, Mrs Thomsen supports the target of at least 40% women and 40% men on the various committees under the Framework Programme. This non-binding target has been in place since 2000 and has brought very good results. For example, women’s participation in committees evaluating research work has increased from 10% in the Fourth Framework Programme to 34% in the Sixth Framework Programme. This shows that when the issue is adequately highlighted, progress can be achieved even when there are no binding targets. Indeed, the existence of binding targets could, in the long term, prove counterproductive, as it signals discrimination against men, and most men and women do not agree with such targets. The report underlines the negative impact of an interruption in employment on women scientists’ careers. In the context of the European Research Area, the European Commission shares these concerns and supports the adoption of policy measures facilitating greater coordination between professional and family life. Networking among women scientists may also contribute substantially towards attracting more women into science and key jobs. This is why we have created the European Platform of Women Scientists, which serves as a catalyst and creates role models in scientific research. One of our main targets is to increase the number of women in key research posts. This is directly linked with the target agreed by the Member States in 2005: 25% of senior posts in public research organisations should be occupied by women. A report on this issue was recently published under the title ‘Mapping the maze: getting more women to the top in research’. It concludes that transparent and fair assessment is not in itself enough to increase the representation of women in decision-making mechanisms. We need a change in the prevailing perceptions. Specialists make proposals about how existing scientific mentality and culture can be broadened and made more open, but the challenge now is to put that into effect. These projects are continuing in the Seventh Framework Programme; they are now linked to the implementation of the European Research Area. The conference to be held in May 2009 under the auspices of the Czech Presidency of the EU will undertake a survey of the successes of the last 10 years and will also identify the areas in which further efforts are needed. The European Parliament’s contribution here will be invaluable. 122 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

In March 2006 the Commission adopted the Roadmap for equality between women and men 2006-2010. This roadmap forms the framework for action by the Commission and is an expression of our commitment to promote gender equality in all our policies, both internally and externally. Our priorities are: reconciling private and professional life; promoting equal participation of women and men in political and economic decision-making bodies, as well as in science and technology; and eliminating gender stereotypes in the fields of education, training and culture, and also in the job market.

Britta Thomsen, rapporteur. − (DA) Mr President, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I am glad that today we can put women and research high up on the agenda, as I believe that it is a pivotal issue for Europe with regard to fulfilment of the Lisbon Strategy. Europe must create more jobs; we must create better jobs and we must become stronger in research and innovation. In each of these three tasks, women are an essential part of the solution. We must have more women in work, and we must have more women in managerial positions and decision-making bodies. If we in Europe are to create up to 700 000 research positions in the coming years, we must also become better at utilising our female talent base. At a general level, I had two objectives in drawing up this report. Firstly, I wanted to set out the status of the current situation. What is the proportion of women in research and why are things so bad? Secondly, I wanted to look ahead and come up with solutions and suggestions as to how we can improve this situation. The situation is not satisfactory at the present time. Women comprise an average of just 35% of researchers working in the public sector and 18% of researchers working in the private sector. Furthermore, even though women make up more than 50% of EU students and achieve 43% of doctoral degrees, they hold only 15% of senior academic posts. We can therefore see a marked distortion in relation to the representation of women in decision-making and managerial positions. Our own recently created institutions such as the European Research Council are also failing to meet any equality criteria. Just 5 of the 22 members of this research council are women. I have also emphasised the fact that in most European countries there is a still a marked under-representation of women on scientific committees – yet another example of women’s lack of representation in decision-making bodies. I would like to say a little more about the second, and perhaps more interesting, part of my report, namely the forward-looking solutions and proposals. I listened carefully to the input that was given during the consultation process held in the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, and one of the clear points that arose was that it was first and foremost a matter of drawing up policies for the area. If this problem area is ignored at both national and institutional level, nothing will happen. In my report I therefore included a requirement for the Member States and the Commission to set a target of at least 40% women in all recruitment and evaluation panels. I believe that this is absolutely essential. If we are to change the situation, we must ensure that there are more women in decision-making bodies, so that efforts can be made from the top down to create a new culture. I have also called for more open recruitment procedures. Experience shows that closed recruitment procedures very much favour men, who point to each other as being the best qualified. I have also made it clear in my report that we must not shrink away from positive action if we are to harbour hopes of correcting the situation relatively quickly. After all, our own figures indicate that there are currently no naturally positive developments. I have therefore recommended that special funding be set aside to promote female researchers and to focus on the importance of networks and role models as simple initiatives, which have produced positive results in the Member States. Very simple initiatives such as a sentence stating that women in particular are encouraged to apply have also produced good results. My work on this report therefore shows that there are many barriers. It is of course important that there are good opportunities to combine life as a researcher with family life, with the opportunity to take maternity leave even if you are a PhD student, but it is also a matter of culture. Cultural barriers are of course more difficult to express in a formula, but in reality – like the more concrete barriers – it is a matter of focusing on some of the distortions. I will say no more here, but I look forward to hearing your comments on the report.

Den Dover, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. − Mr President, it gives me the greatest of pleasure to welcome every word that the Commissioner spoke this evening and also to congratulate Mrs Thomsen, who has done a wonderful job as rapporteur on this most important subject. It is a delight for me on the centre-right of the Chamber to be applauding a Socialist from the other side and from another country than my own and to wish her well because she has balanced the whole approach; she has highlighted the most important factors relating to the fact that ladies come to their teenage years ahead of males. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 123

They are more intelligent; they are more hard-working; they can apply themselves and yet, even when they go into higher education, into the start of a research career, they sometimes fall away. This is often because of pressures at home, in their personal lives. Mrs Thomsen is right in her report and this evening to concentrate and focus on those problems. The report has constructive ideas. The only thing I hold back from is setting specific objectives for the percentage of women that should reach this grade or that grade or that position or another position. That is too prescriptive. But, on the other hand, this report has my total support. I was honoured to produce the opinion from the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. I thank those shadow rapporteurs on the main report and on my opinion for their full cooperation. This is an example of a piece of legislation and a report here in the European Parliament ensuring that we are seen at our best, in cooperation, focusing on the needs of the research industry. I close by saying that last Thursday evening I went with one of my colleagues, Lambert van Nistelrooij from Holland, to Oxford University. All of the scientists, the researchers, there were female. I greatly welcome that.

President. – Thank you very much, Mr Dover. I thank you particularly in view of the fact that, apart from Commissioner Dimas, you are the only man who has signed up for this debate tonight. I have only female speakers.

Edit Bauer, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (SK) Thank you very much, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. Allow me to congratulate Mrs Thomsen, on behalf of the shadow rapporteur for the PPE-DE Group, Mrs Sartori, and on my own behalf as well. I want to say that the situation regarding women and science is comparable with the situation of women and politics, although in the field of science women are slightly better represented. This is in spite of the fact that women make up approximately 60% of university graduates. A scientific career is more than a nine-to-five job. There is also a strong competitive angle: women often must perform higher than men in order to become successful. An older female colleague alerted me to this fact at the start of my scientific career many years ago. Is the question why women are so under-represented in science, why after a period of time there is a decrease in the number of young female scientists and therefore why we consequently lose gifted scientists, the correct question? Creating conditions for combining working and family life is of vital interest for female scientists. In this respect, achieving the Barcelona goals is especially important. If women are supposed to be successful scientists, the facilities available to them should be reliable, accessible, first-rate, appropriate to the character and requirements of the scientific work, and sufficiently flexible. However, we also have to consider the question of general support for science and development. If the salary fluctuates between low and lowest, no one can expect such professions to be attractive for young women or even for young men starting families. This is a real problem in some countries, namely the new Member States, where support for science and research does not account for even 1% of GDP. Let me finish by saying that the situation should be solved by changing the conditions rather than by setting quotas.

Zita Gurmai, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (HU) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, women’s participation in higher education has increased dramatically over recent years. This has not, however, resulted in an improvement in the ratio of women to men in the sciences. The number of women in engineering has also risen in the past twenty years, but not by nearly as much as in other occupations and scientific disciplines. As a result of the difficulties, a large proportion of women scientists abandon a career in science, and this is unacceptable and irrational. It is more difficult for women to get ahead in their profession. This is particularly apparent with regard to wages. Women are less well represented in scientific institutions. Female researchers are forced to choose between career and family. The temporary breaks in women’s careers in science due to family reasons make promotion of women difficult. We must look at methods aimed at establishing a balance between working life and private life and apply best practice. The Lisbon Strategy also requires us to apply the principles of gender equality in the field of research and development. We must take more effective action in all areas of science, making recruitment procedures and promotion requirements more transparent. We must strive to ensure gender equality in university and non-university research and in the governing bodies of these institutions. The report is excellent, and I recommend its adoption. I also congratulate my colleague Britta Thomsen who, as a researcher, has studied this subject in considerable depth. Thank you for doing this. 124 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

Siiri Oviir, on behalf of ALDE. – (ET) Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, life in today’s world is increasingly bound up with science and technology through both new or improved products and services and technological development. Europe’s women scientists undoubtedly contribute to this process. It has already been stated here that there are more women undergraduate students in universities than men; this is also true of Master’s and Doctoral degree students – there are more women. However, there are seven times fewer women than men working at a senior level in scientific and educational establishments: the average is 15%. Why is this? The scientific world throughout the ages has always been comprised predominantly of men. This has been justified with the argument that genuine knowledge is attained using precisely the objective methods and logical discussion which come less naturally to women than to men. The fact that the scientific body is comprised even today predominantly of men is in itself more down to the assimilation of masculinity into scientific thought than to the above justification. Academic science has shown that the notion that objectivity can be equated with masculinity is a myth. The reality today, however, is that that myth unquestionably influences the distribution of employment and the decision-making process associated with the funding of scientific research. This belittling attitude also gains strength through the media, where women are portrayed in a one-dimensional, tendentious way. Often women are portrayed in the media in any old position, chiefly as members of women’s groups, and not as professionals in their fields. At the same time we have done little to change the situation and increase women’s opportunities for better employment. To change this view, which is widespread in society, we must start to advocate science to both sexes as an interesting and attractive area from the earliest stages. The pictures in children’s books depicting women in aprons and men in spacecraft must disappear. I support the positive measures proposed in the report to encourage and support women scientists, whether in the form of careers advice aimed at women scientists or special programmes to support girls’ and women’s interest in science-based careers. I cannot, however, support mechanistic quotas based on gender as they tie us to a specific time-period and may result in quantity instead of quality. I thank the rapporteur for a concise piece of work and apologise.

Hiltrud Breyer, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, gender equality is a value and objective of the European Union. However, although much has been written about it, discrimination occurs on a daily basis. Sadly, perceived equality also exists in science. We know that more girls than boys leave secondary school with higher education entrance qualifications, and more young women than young men have a tertiary qualification. Women are therefore very well educated, but they hit the glass ceiling upon graduating from university. The figures are sobering: only 15% of all professors are female. Only 15% of the top positions are occupied by women, even though the majority of university graduates and half of all those completing a doctorate are women. Wage discrimination also occurs in science: the committees that make decisions about research projects comprise fewer than 20% women. One could almost hypothesize that the greater the amount of money spent on a research project, the less likely it is that women will be involved. What we need, then, if we are to do more than simply pay lip service to equality, are quotas – but they must be ambitious quotas, so that they really achieve something. Gender equality must apply in all areas of science, and this equality should apply to at least 40% of the underrepresented sex, i.e. women, and not merely to 25%. Therefore, for change to happen, we must set ourselves precisely this ambitious goal. To close, let me to mention another matter close to my heart: we know that by 2010, the European Union will be short of 700 000 researchers. We must therefore make every effort to prevent the European Union becoming a scientific wasteland. Yet highly gifted girls are being overlooked very early on. Encouraging highly talented young women is a matter that is very close to my heart and I would ask the rapporteur to place more emphasis on this.

Ewa Tomaszewska, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, in my country, Poland, the average level of education among women is higher than the average level of education among men. As a physicist by profession, employed at Warsaw University, I did not experience any discrimination on gender grounds. I would have felt demeaned if my professional status had been decided not by my knowledge and intellectual capacity, but by some secondary feature, such as gender. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 125

Through her work and her passion for discovery, Marie Skłodowska-Curie obtained results for which she was twice awarded a Nobel Prize. The rector of my university, ranked number one in Poland, is also a woman, a professor of physics. The reality that governs the situation of women in the world of science is not the same everywhere, though. Problems are evident when you learn that women make up only 35% of scientific workers employed in the State sector and higher education in the European Union, and only 18% in the private sector. Sometimes this is a result of family duties being placed above the call of science, but not always. The findings of paragraphs 2 and 3 of this report are important, in my view. It is in fact during the first period of education that it is easiest to show that while science may be hard, it is always involving, and it is therefore worth making an effort to discover what we consider to be interesting, and what we cannot reach other than through scientific study. It is worth encouraging anyone who is up to it to take up scientific work; many women have such capabilities, and it would be a shame to miss out on this potential. The examples referred to in paragraph 3 are of some validity here, indicating as they do that this effort brings results. Under the Lisbon Strategy, but independently of it, it is immeasurably important to invest in people and in their education. This increases a person’s opportunities in the labour market. This is also true of the very specific labour market that is the sphere of science. It is therefore important in all traineeships, exchanges between educational institutions and other such opportunities for improving one’s occupational standing that access criteria should not be discriminatory.

Eva-Britt Svensson, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (SV) My thanks to the rapporteur, Mrs Thomsen, for highlighting the problem of inequality in science and research. Inequality pervades society. Through commitment and opinion-forming by women’s organisations among others, however, awareness of inequality in many sectors has increased and many have realised its negative consequences for society as a whole. But precisely in the scientific community it has long been hidden. Hence this report is of special importance. While the EU emphasises the role of research in economic development, research continues in many cases to be reserved for only one gender. In the public sector 35% of researchers are women, in the private sector just 18%. The Scientific Council of the European Research Council has 22 members, of whom five are women. This report focuses attention on the problem but, in my opinion, it is not enough. We must raise the level of ambition still further. I have a comment to make in the discussion on equality: we must continue to defend the demand for equality by saying that it is needed for economic growth and development. When shall we be able to say that equality is an objective in its own right which does not need to be defended in economic terms? Equal rights are human rights!

Urszula Krupa, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (PL) Mr President, the role played by women in science appears to differ among the individual EU Member States. In the very difficult times under Communism, women in Poland had access to science and political rights significantly earlier than in many countries of the old EU. Previously, the problem was – and it still is today – more one of a poor economic situation and opaque criteria for allocating resources to scientific research, usually regardless of gender. Despite these obstacles, there are many women who, as wives and mothers, fulfil important social functions, working as ministers, directors, deans and professors at higher education institutions or as doctors, without feeling that they are being discriminated against by men. Contrary to what strident feminists say, in my country women are generally respected; they do not have complexes but rather an awareness of their own value and strength, in the knowledge that, in cooperating with men, they are playing an important role in all areas of life, while, however, placing the highest value on defending life, protecting marriage and the family and other supreme values. The percentage of women students is constantly on the rise, and by the 1990s it was already 51%. According to reports, women make up 38% of scientific workers in EU countries in Central and Eastern Europe, although a large number of them are employed in fields in which expenditure on scientific research is low. It therefore seems right to suggest that more funds be made available, accompanied by encouragement to take up scientific work, alongside the further strengthening of the position of women, especially through legal regulations enabling family and professional life to be reconciled, including financial and social recognition for domestic work with the aim of offering a genuinely free choice, but without parities or any change in the definition of excellence. 126 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

The percentage differentiation in management positions may be linked to the significant mental and physical effort being too much of a burden, so the representation of women should be put into practice by recognising and utilising knowledge and individual predispositions along with improving legal and economic conditions and aid infrastructure, which make it easier to reconcile family life with one’s occupation.

Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). – (SK) In order to meet the goals of the Lisbon Strategy, the priority for the European Union must be to create a wide base of scientists capable of implementing quality research at the highest international level. Women’s participation in science does not correspond to the needs of research, even though women achieve higher education than men, and even though there are more women in higher education than men. It is thus necessary to concentrate on educating and supporting top female scientists and to motivate talented women to take up a scientific career by creating good opportunities for quality scientific work, by providing an adequate career and salary. Obstacles preventing women from participating in scientific work still exist today. Psychology and at times insufficient solidarity among women also play a role. The fact is that female researchers find it more difficult to reconcile working and family life than men. The breaks women take in scientific careers for family reasons have a negative impact on their career prospects. Since scientific work is non-stop, it would be to women’s advantage to work from home as well, unless their presence at the workplace is inevitable. The majority of those who experience mobility problems are women because it is generally a woman’s task to look after children, older people or other family dependents. Women would welcome child-care facilities at scientific institutions. I think that quotas will not solve the problem of the lack of women scientists if women themselves do not wish to change this status quo. They must have suitable conditions, be more confident and show solidarity with one another. I trust that the Seventh Framework Programme and scientific research programmes will support projects that encourage women to take up scientific careers. It is important for the project selection systems to be transparent, which is why women should have equal representation on assessment boards and selection committees.

Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (PSE). – (PL) Even though women make up more than 50% of EU students and achieve 43% of EU doctoral degrees, they hold, on average, only 15% of senior academic posts and are in a minority among researchers. In the government and higher education sector they comprise an average of 35% of researchers, and in the private sector just 18%. Analyses have shown that existing recruitment systems are not gender neutral. The existence of a ‘glass ceiling’ for women trying to progress to senior positions is well documented and affects all areas of the economy, especially those related to science and technology. The Commission and Member States should introduce transparent recruitment procedures as soon as possible to ensure a gender balance in recruitment bodies. Since research represents a crucial sector for the economic development of the European Union, and Europe needs to recruit 700 000 additional researchers as part of the fulfilment of the Lisbon Strategy for growth and development, it is very important to programme science as an area that is open to both genders and to ensure that women are properly represented among scientists. In order to achieve this aim, it is essential to provide appropriate working conditions that will suit a female scientist along with an infrastructure that enables a smooth interface between professional and family life. Finally, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Thomsen, on an excellently drafted document.

IN THE CHAIR: Edward McMILLAN-SCOTT Vice-President

Danutė Budreikaitė (ALDE). – (LT) Regretfully, despite the legal acts adopted by the EU and all the declarations and discussions we have had, the gender mainstreaming dimension in the sphere of scientific research, among others, remains unsatisfactory.

Although there are a large number of female students in the universities of the EU, only 18% of researchers working in the private sector and only 15% of researchers in senior academic positions are women. In the government and higher education sectors women account for just 35%. Moreover, women working in scientific research are paid much less than their male colleagues and their work usually consists more of teaching than of research, which seldom allows them to achieve recognition. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 127

I urge the Commission and the Member States to increase their efforts to support women aiming to forge a career as scientists. In considering how to support them, we cannot overlook the family dimension, the flexibility of working hours and the improvement of child care institutions and family flexibility.

Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Mr President, coming from a science background myself, I welcome this important discussion on women in the field of science and technology. In principle I agree with Mrs Thomsen’s report, which seeks to identify the barriers that account for the under-representation of women in science and I agree that most education systems in Europe continue to sustain gender stereotypes. Her report notes other factors that contribute to the under-representation of women in this field and regrettably in many other professional fields as well. These factors include the negative impact of career breaks for family reasons and restrictions on mobility due to family responsibilities. I applaud its call on the Commission and, more particularly, Member States to take positive action on a number of fronts – education, childcare, social security, parental leave – as well as making available adequate funding in order to improve the prospects for women seeking to further careers in or to re-enter science after rearing a family. We need competent women at all levels of society – and indeed we need women with scientific backgrounds in politics also – but I believe we will never achieve this by setting quotas on gender participation. Instead, we should aim for more transparency on recruitment, for mentoring schemes, strengthening the networking among women scientists, the promotion of female researchers as role models and of course the adequate availability of funding to encourage women in science, while maintaining fairness and equality. I believe that most women scientists would agree with this.

In 2003 in my own country, Ireland, a Science, Engineering and Technology (SET) Committee was set up to make recommendations on strategies to increase the uptake among women and girls of science subjects and higher level-mathematics at second level and to increase the number of females choosing science engineering and technology courses at third level. This committee is chaired by Professor Jane Grimson of Trinity College, Dublin, an eminent academic in her own right. We also have an organisation known as WITS – Women in Technology and Science, which was inaugurated in 1999. We have the Wiser Workforce Project, which is a return-to-work initiative for women scientists. We have Science Foundation Ireland, which has launched four programmes to address under-representation of women in Irish science and engineering. Finally, these schemes aim to encourage and support the development of sustainable mechanisms and practices which will ensure that women researchers have an equal opportunity to compete on the basis of their scientific expertise, knowledge and potential.

Marusya Ivanova Lyubcheva (PSE). – (BG) President, Commissioner, the report on Women in Science is very well scoped, and it deals with the participation of women in one of the most important development processes, scientific research. Its importance is determined by the fact that it outlines the structure of scientific development and provides solutions in a key aspect, the make-up of human resources in science. Women play an important role in universities, research institutes and the private sector. The unsatisfactory level of women’s involvement in management and decision-making in science, the low percentage of women holding PhDs, or who are professors or members of academies has to do with public stereotypes and difficulties on the path of women in their pursuit of careers in science. What we need is to apply flexible working hours, to develop provision of services which support women and provide opportunities for choice and self-fulfilment. An enhanced role for women in science should not be considered as just another gender policy. It is a mission that makes better use of the high potential of women without falling into the other extreme. Because of their devotion to science, women should not give up their natural purpose of creating a family and being mothers. For young women in science, the principle of double priority should apply: both family and career.

Erna Hennicot-Schoepges (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, I think that our goal is the same, we want to achieve parity, but we are not unanimous about how to achieve it.

Commissioner, your statistics are well put together, they prove that the road is long and laborious and that you have done the right thing by introducing quotas for nominations in committees, because, without a proactive policy, we will not find women, because in order to find them we first need to have the will to find them. 128 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

So the higher up the ladder we climb, the more reticence there is about appointing women, and what is entirely ill adapted and illogical is that in the education sector women are largely in the majority, but in academic environments they are absent. So why is this the case? I think that an analysis needs to be done. We need to invite the Member States, and perhaps the Commissioner could put some pressure on the Member States to establish a degree of benchmarking to clarify the situation in their universities. Often selection processes for professors do not have the same criteria. Women are always asked the question: ‘What childcare arrangements will you make?’ Men are never asked this question and therefore in this debate we are all talking about out childcare responsibilities. Would this also be the case if we were talking about men? Why is it that we do not turn the problem around, and, moreover, it is not a problem. Having a family is a great joy, it is a treasure, for men too; why should we not change our views? I think that the appointment of professors should be reviewed, along with the process and the questions that are asked and, in order to make progress in the fields of new technologies, the Commission should take targeted action. Regarding the excellence criteria, I do not think that we can make any allowances.

Gabriela Creţu (PSE). – (RO) Dear colleagues, I will present three issues very briefly. In former socialist countries, the situation seems even more dramatic since the previous gender policy led to the development of a significant segment of women who were active in the field of science. On the contrary, transition has generated the brutal decline in funds allocated to research and the decrease in the number of researchers. Today, yesterday’s women researchers sell insurance policies, are civil servants or have left their countries of origin, with multiple negative consequences: waste of human resources, high dissatisfaction and obstacles to development. The second issue is that, today, the activities of mass communication, public relations, and advertising companies play an important role, including economic, in the gross domestic product. They rely on the research in human and social sciences where many women work. Nevertheless, a traditional hierarchy of sciences does not provide them with sufficient social recognition and works as indirect discrimination against the women researchers in these fields.

Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Thomsen’s report has touched on a sensitive aspect of my own experience. I received my doctorate from the Sorbonne when I was already the mother of three children and my husband had four. I had to cut myself off from the world of further research. The pursuit of academic excellence gets into your blood and you feel wretched when forced to abandon it. Now I must admit that much later, after I had had more children, a German university offering a programme specifically for mothers gave me the opportunity to continue my research, which I have been continuing voluntarily until now. Therefore, possibilities do exist, and for this reason the family aspect should be included in the planning of research programmes and research posts, so that human resources are made full use of. I think that binding targets will thus no longer be required and the perception of women’s contribution to research will change. For this reason, planning is necessary so that women can be accepted according to the particular stage of their professional life. Because of the few years in which a woman has no choice but to be excluded, she is deprived of the joys of academe for the rest of her life and society loses out on what she has to offer. Women researchers should therefore be given the opportunity to take part in programmes. At a later stage, the participation of women in research programmes should be a criterion for assessing the quality of universities. May I also remind you of the report that we presented last year, in which we said that it ought to be possible to combine professional and family life from undergraduate level onwards.

Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, I congratulate my fellow Member on a very good report. An increased involvement in scientific research is essential if the principles of the Lisbon Strategy are to be achieved. As the rapporteur emphasises, Europe needs an extra 700 000 researchers if the Strategy’s principles are to be put into effect. I believe that the involvement and potential of women themselves will mean that they make up a high percentage of this group. I am, however, concerned at the proposal to ensure a gender balance in evaluation and recruitment committees. As a woman politician, I would not like my activities to be assessed solely through the prism of my gender. I would prefer the quality and results of my work to determine how I work. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 129

There is an interesting proposal to increase interest among young people in taking up further education in specific and technical fields. This should be accompanied by action to promote science as an area that is of interest for work and professional development among both women and men. I feel that proposals enabling a professional career to be combined with family life are worth considering. They should be viewed in a broader context – in a context where women’s participation in the labour market is supported and encouraged.

Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE-DE). – (SK) As my colleague just said, Europe needs more than 700 000 researchers today. I consider this alarming. Women could close this gap. Current statistics show that although women achieve higher education than men, they comprise only one third of researchers working in the government sector and only 18% of researchers working in the private sector. I believe that first of all we have to do away with gender stereotypes that influence not only the choice young women make regarding their field of study but also the job allocation process, research funding and hiring criteria. Although I agree with the need to ensure that women participate in the EU and national programmes, I do not think it should be done through quotas. I support the idea of providing innovative forms of flexible working time for women that will allow them to continue research work after becoming mothers. This can significantly contribute to greater participation by women in top scientific posts.

Monica Maria Iacob-Ridzi (PPE-DE). – (RO) This report has important financial implications, both as regards the Community funds, which could be used in combating gender inequality in the field of science, and the national budgets of Member States. First of all, we should mention that it is not enough to speak only about the funds available through the Seventh Framework Programme for development and research. In their turn, important amounts in the European Regional Development Fund or the European Social Fund could support the research and development activity. Thus, we should not disadvantage the participation of women by the conditions stipulated in the demands for proposals by which these programmes are implemented. Moreover, it is necessary that some budgetary lines finance a greater participation of women in the research programmes or the grants with Community financing. Besides this, once the European Institute of Technology is created, we should ensure an equal representation of young women students at doctoral level in the academic composition of the new institution.

Marios Matsakis (ALDE). – Mr President, as one of a very small number of men attending this important debate, and as a scientist myself, I feel the need to say this: In my long experience as a medical practitioner I found that women scientists were just as good as, if not better than, men. The only problem for women in achieving top positions has, in my view, been the very hard choice they have had to make in deciding whether to be a full-time mother and a part-time scientist or the reverse. Women have always made the choice to be full-time mothers. I therefore feel that this report is very important. I congratulate the rapporteur, but we need practical ways of helping mothers achieve top positions and not just theoretical ideas.

Stavros Dimas, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I would like to thank all the speakers in tonight’s debate for their very positive contributions. The Commission policy on gender in research has two main strands – women’s participation in research and the gender dimension of research. In the first we try to tackle the presence of women at all levels of the career ladder and the gender differences in various principal areas. In the second strand, we focus on research design and the account taken of gender diversity in research. The Commission is as committed as ever to the promotion of gender equality in research. As regards the quotas, we believe that targets such as the 40% target for each gender for various expert groups, and evaluation panels in the Seventh Framework Programme, are objective and balanced ones and are bringing good results. We will continue to strive to reach these objectives and we hope to increase the number of women in science this way. Our endeavours are already bringing results and I would like to thank you for your support in our efforts on improving the situation for better inclusion of women in science and research.

Thank you very much for your comments and good cooperation.

Britta Thomsen (PSE), rapporteur. – (DA) Mr President, thank you for the opportunity to speak. Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your comments. I am pleased to hear that you share my concerns and visions for the future of European research. With regard to the aforementioned quotas, I believe that I have been a little misunderstood. I am not talking about quotas for researchers, but it is very clear that 130 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

one of the most important barriers to employing and utilising the female talent base lies in the composition of recruitment committees. This is because they are not gender-neutral, and I therefore believe that we must do something about that. We cannot continue to ignore this problem and hope that tomorrow will be brighter and that it will happen all by itself. We must demand political action now. The Commission has of course been the progressive player in this matter, as a unit for women and research was created several years ago in the Directorate-General for Research. It is the Member States that are lagging behind. It is their commitment that will be essential in relation to securing change within the university and research institutions. I would like to thank my fellow Members, the Secretariat and the Commission for their cooperation. I was very pleased with the cooperation of researchers and the European Platform of Women Scientists in particular – special thanks must go to them.

President. − The debate is closed. The vote will take place tomorrow. Written statements (Rule 142)

Mihaela Popa (PPE-DE), in writing. – (RO) As a teacher of mathematics, I have dealt with the phenomenon of young women’s ever decreasing access to science directly. Taking into account the statistics that show that ever fewer young women chose science faculties, where mathematics, physics, biology or chemistry are intensively taught, I consider the draft report of the European Parliament on women and science to be opportune. The experience I have in the educational field makes me say that the ever decreasing involvement of women in science is a matter of mentality and under no circumstance of capacity. For this reason, I consider it important for the European Union to initiate more programmes that promote equality of chances and change of mentality regarding young women’s access to science. Organizing experience exchange programmes and competitions at European level, even from an early age, can give confidence and courage to young people, encouraging them to go to science schools. We need as many European programmes as possible to contribute to the equality of chances by stimulating creativity, logical thinking, intuition and ideas exchange at a European level.

21. Banning of exports and the safe storage of metallic mercury (debate)

President. − The next item is the recommendation for second reading from the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the Council common position for adopting a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the banning of exports and the safe storage of metallic mercury (11488/1/2007 – C6-0034/2008 – 2006/0206(COD)) (Rapporteur: Dimitrios Papadimoulis) (A6-0102/2008).

Dimitrios Papadimoulis, rapporteur. − (EL) Mr President, let me begin by thanking the shadow rapporteurs from all the political groups. Without their assistance and contribution, I could not have achieved a satisfactory compromise with the Council. If approved exactly as agreed with the Council and without amendments invalidating it, the compromise text may represent a significant step towards implementing the Community Strategy Concerning Mercury. The text will put an end to the export not only of metallic mercury, but also of certain important mercury compounds that are produced in large quantities in the EU. The EU is a major exporter of mercury; every year it supplies about 1 000 tonnes of the current world total of 3 600 tonnes. The proposed Regulation under discussion deals mainly with 12 000 tonnes of mercury which will become surplus in the coming years, and it will pave the way for further measures to be taken at international level. Let us not forget that mercury is a worldwide pollutant which knows no bounds. Dealing with it is a matter of priority and international concern. The Regulation will contribute significantly towards strengthening the EU’s leadership role in the talks being held under the auspices of the UN Environment Programme, and also towards the adoption of an international treaty on mercury. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 131

The most important provisions of the compromise text are as follows: It broadens the scope of the ban on exports covering not only metallic mercury but also cinnabar ore, mercuric chloride, mercuric oxide and mixtures with a mercury content exceeding 95% by weight. An express prohibition has been imposed against mixing metallic mercury with other substances for export. The ban on exports of mercury and certain mercury compounds has been brought forward. An obligation has been placed on companies operating in the chlor-alkali and gas cleaning industries to notify the Commission and publish information on the quantities of mercury in storage or being dispatched for disposal. A review clause has been included requiring the Commission to re-examine the situation and submit a report on the matter to the European Parliament and the Council no later than 15 March 2013. The clause contains proposals for additional measures. It has been agreed that arrangements should be made for an exchange of information by 1 January 2010, with an export ban being considered for any products containing mercury. Lastly, according to the agreed text, mercury no longer used in the chlor-alkali industry or produced in other industrial enterprises will be regarded as waste and put into safe storage. We have also succeeded in introducing conditions for the acceptance of metallic mercury prior to its final disposal on the basis of research into its solidification.

Ladies and gentlemen, let me say in conclusion that I think the compromise text we have achieved with the Council is an important one if it is approved without amendments, which would send us back to square one and considerably delay measures to protect the environment and public health. I believe that with tomorrow’s vote we will be taking a step forward, which will ensure a satisfactory level of protection for public health and the environment.

Stavros Dimas, Member of the Commission. − (EL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to express my thanks and congratulations to the rapporteur, Mr Papadimoulis, on his excellent contribution to the Regulation on the banning of exports of metallic mercury, and also to the members of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, for their positive and constructive input. This Regulation implements two of the procedures mentioned by the Commission in its communication of 2005 to the Council and the European Parliament on the Community Strategy Concerning Mercury. The adoption of this Regulation will be a milestone in the implementation of the strategy, since it will prohibit exports from the Community of metallic mercury, –which account for at least 25% of global supply. The main aim of the proposed Regulation is to limit the global supply of mercury by banning exports of metallic mercury from the EU and putting it into safe storage. The Regulation is concerned mainly with 12 000 tonnes of mercury that will become surplus in the coming years because mercury cell technology in the chlor-alkali industry will be progressively phased out. The Regulation will prevent the export of surplus mercury to third countries and its use in gold digging and similar unlawful activities, which contribute significantly to the accumulation of mercury in the environment. Parliament’s efforts to further increase the scope and improve the text of this legislative initiative have been fruitful. They have ensured that the Regulation in its agreed form will become an effective means of protecting public health and the environment. I should like to thank the institutions and all those who took part in the process with a view to achieving agreement at second reading. In particular, I should like to emphasise the constructive role of the European Parliament in shaping this satisfactory agreement. On some important points, Parliament has insisted on going beyond the scope of the Commission’s initial proposal. In particular, let me underline three points that were at the centre of the negotiations: · The scope of the export ban. · The date of its entry into force. · The safe and economically advantageous final disposal of metallic mercury. 132 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

The Commission understands Parliament’s aim to secure optimistic targets for these fundamental points and is in a position to accept the proposed changes. The Commission will, of course, keep a close eye on the correct enforcement and observance of all the Regulation’s provisions, and will also re-examine the need to take further measures. This proposal contributes significantly to the aim of reducing exposure to mercury. It paves the way for taking further measures at international and global level. International negotiations are in any case in progress under the auspices of the UN Environment Programme. Adopting this Regulation will send out a strong message regarding the EU’s commitment to addressing the problem. In addition to Amendments 42-63, which have already been agreed, five new amendments have been tabled on the use of the Almadén district in Spain as a priority area for the safe storage of metallic mercury. The Commission understands the likely economic impact on the region if the mercury mine is closed. A research programme coordinated by the company MAYASA, which owns the area, is receiving more than EUR 2 million in funding from the LIFE Fund. This programme is examining safe disposal methods for metallic mercury. Its findings will be useful for setting acceptance conditions for the final disposal of mercury, as provided for in Amendment 56 to the proposed regulation. The Almadén district could obviously be considered for the safe storage of mercury, provided it meets the conditions to be imposed, and provided it has the necessary permits. However, the Commission cannot justify the proposed priority in Amendments 37-41 of only one region, and therefore cannot accept those amendments.

To sum up, the European Commission can accept the compromise package as agreed in the tripartite discussions, namely Amendments 42-63. It is satisfied with the agreement on the regulation at second reading. However, Amendments 37-41 have not been agreed and cannot be accepted.

Martin Callanan, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, can I first of all offer my thanks to Mr Papadimoulis for guiding this report through Parliament. I fully understand that this must have been a very difficult and time-consuming process. However, I must express my dissatisfaction at the final stage of this process, namely the informal meetings that were held with the Council with a view to reaching the second-reading agreement. They were conducted by Mr Papadimoulis alone without the other shadow rapporteurs being invited. I think that is a regrettable situation. My group has been generally supportive of the common position originally adopted by the Council, as I am well aware of the need to try and agree a speedy implementation of this regulation. My group agrees with the major points that were a matter of concern for some Member States, particularly the need to retain the possibility of safe permanent storage and the need to adhere approximately to the agreed date of implementation. Most of those issues were addressed and resolved. However, two specific issues were not. First of all there is the position of Almadén that the Commissioner referred to. We do not think that the compromise amendments go far enough: we think there should be specific references to the problems caused in Almadén, one of the primary mercury-mining areas in the Community, and we think they should be addressed. They were addressed by Parliament at both stages and we think they should be in the common position. The other issue about which I am disappointed is the specific inclusion of a reference in the compromise package to a possible ban on the export of barometers. This was not present in the common position and was not supported by my group. I am disappointed that the Council conceded that point to Mr Papadimoulis during the negotiations. Therefore I have retabled an amendment to delete it from the final package. Finally I would like to thank the Commission and Mr Papadimoulis and particularly the Slovenian Presidency who I know have worked hard on this. It is not their fault that our parliamentary procedures, in my view, need serious reform on these matters.

Miguel Angel Martínez Martínez, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Socialists are going to vote in solidarity and coherence with the district of Almadén, Spain, which is going to be seriously affected by the text that we are discussing and that we are to vote on tomorrow. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 133

The district of Almadén and its people, my compatriots, have lived for centuries from the mercury that was extracted from their mines, which are the largest for this metal in Europe and the world. Over recent years they have suffered a considerable economic and social recession, as for various reasons, mercury mining has been gradually limited. We are now deciding to ban its export. Not only have we not opposed this whole process, but, as we understand the health reasons behind it, we have focused our efforts on the one hand on raising the awareness of the population regarding the need to take on board the new situation and, on the other hand, on developing mechanisms to enable Almadén and its surrounding area to move forward by restructuring its activities based on the experience and working capacities of its people and taking advantage of an exceptional natural environment. In Almadén we have been talking about the European Union as a context of solidarity. We have explained to the people that the Community institutions would continue to look after them, that they would receive help to continue with the efforts that they are leading with the help of the Spanish Government, the Regional Government of Castile-La Mancha and Ciudad Real Provincial Council; and this commitment has been confirmed by all the pronouncements made by Parliament. Firstly, it has always been recommended that resources and mechanisms should be made available by the European Union and its Commission to support Almadén in restructuring its activity, so that the people will not suffer as a result of the closure of their traditional mining industry. Secondly, it has been recommended that, when considering a location for the mercury storage provided for in the Directive for all the metal that has or will appear in Europe, Almadén should be considered as a priority.

The logic was based on both the experience that has been accumulated here in handling mercury and on the fundamental fact that the majority of the mercury in Europe is already entirely safely stored in Almadén. This is something that was decided at the time and will not in any way be altered by what we adopt tomorrow, but rather, without naming Almadén, the consensus amendment that the parliamentary groups reached, which also appears to have the support of the Council and the Commission, means that the previous commitments remain fully in force. Although we would have preferred it to have been cited more expressly, and we will therefore vote for the amendments that do so, we understand that the text that will be adopted is sufficiently committed and will continue to support the interpretation of that text which will enable the district of Almadén to consolidate the socio-economic recovery that is already underway.

Marios Matsakis, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I should like to congratulate Mr Papadimoulis for his excellent report and for the hard work he put into ensuring good cooperation with all the shadow rapporteurs as well as with the Commission and Council representatives. The aim of the proposal under consideration is to ban the export of metallic mercury from the Community, as well as to ensure that the mercury does not re-enter the market and is safely stored in line with Actions 5 and 9 identified in the Community strategy concerning mercury, on which I had the honour to be rapporteur and which was adopted by Parliament two years ago. Such actions are necessary in order to limit further additions to the global pool of this highly toxic heavy metal. After hard negotiations a deal was achieved with the Council and agreed to by all political groups to my knowledge. This agreement was based on the acceptance of a compromise package by all the shadows. Unfortunately, subsequent to such an agreement amendments were tabled on behalf of the PPE-DE and PSE Groups which, if voted for, will mean that the whole compromise package collapses and the matter will go to conciliation, with inevitable further delay in the adoption of measures to protect public health and the environment from continuing contamination by mercury. Regarding these amendments, apart from the question of principle and going back to the initial agreement, there are also strong arguments on substance which the rapporteur has communicated to all MEPs in a fair and eloquent manner and it is thus not necessary to repeat his arguments now. Suffice to say that my group stands by and will honour its agreement with the rapporteur on the compromise package and can only hope that other political groups will do the same. Let us all remember that small, short-term local or national benefits should not overshadow large, long-term global gains.

Finally, let me reassure my Spanish colleagues that the people of Almadén will have my full support for their just demands, which, in my view, can be achieved fully through the compromise package and not in opposition to it. 134 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

Carl Schlyter, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (SV) Mr President, I want to thank Mr Papadimoulis for facilitating good cooperation. I also think that cooperation with the Council went well, although we had disagreements over content. We must first note that mercury is a toxic and dangerous heavy metal. To begin with, some criticism. I think that it odd that, while we ban the export of hazardous waste and ourselves practically cease to use mercury at all, we seek to delay an export ban so that industry has time to run down its stocks before it is defined as waste. It is a hazardous chemical which we know will be dispersed in nature by gold washers and which will destroy the environment in other countries. I actually wanted a much earlier date for the ban to take effect. But a compromise is a compromise. I can instead be glad that the voluntary measures of the industry are now included in the legislation, so that they will actually be implemented, and that all the necessary adjuncts will be covered by the export ban, for example cinnabar, oxides and calomel. In that way we have at least got a comprehensive piece of legislation. As regards how we are to deal with the waste, we are talking about quite small quantities. Imagine 10 000 tonnes of liquid mercury. It would not take up much room, in fact it would fit in the space here in front of the podium – it corresponds to a volume of 10 cubic metres. No more than that. Yet it is a huge amount of mercury. Many molecules, in fact. We must not release a single one of them into the environment. The only way of actually implementing the EU’s waste legislation is not to dump mercury for permanent disposal in liquid form. For my Group, therefore, Article 7 was crucial to a resolution of the matter, in other words the article in which we are to return to the question of waste solidification. We cannot achieve any permanent disposal without looking again at that method. I was gratified today to receive an e-mail from a Swedish waste organisation (det svenska avfallsbolaget) which says that a pilot plant is now being constructed that can already handle 500 kg of waste and convert it to insoluble, solid form. When we return to the matter in 2010, I can guarantee that disposal in solid form will be a safe method which complies with the EU legislation.

Thomas Ulmer (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as Mr Schlyter has just said, 10 thousand tonnes is a very large amount. Just to give you an idea of the scale, it is enough to poison approximately 4 million people a day. About a year ago, we discussed the dossier at first reading. Sufficient regulation of metallic mercury compounds and mercury has been arranged. It has been ensured that this material does not return to the European Union. Safe storage has also been sufficiently evaluated. The actual restrictions make sense given mercury’s increasing toxicity, although I would have liked to see more far-reaching restrictions in many areas. The compromise works very well, and at this point I would like to congratulate Mr Papadimoulis on his work. It does not meet all expectations, but it does meet a great many of them. As a former local and regional politician, I also have a great deal of sympathy for our Spanish Members, who have to find a solution to the Almadén problem that will be workable for everyone. The compromise is so worthwhile, however, that we must not allow it to miscarry because of this issue. There ought to be enough time before tomorrow’s vote for the Commission to make an appropriate statement of some kind. It is important to accept the compromise now, because otherwise, there is a risk that we will not reach agreement in this parliamentary term. I would like to mention one further matter: the mercury strategy is not yet complete. The Commission’s two panels of experts continue to rate amalgam as safe. I cannot agree with this opinion.

Pilar Ayuso (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats has brought back some amendments that refer to Almadén, the largest and oldest mine in the world, that were adopted by a large majority at first reading. The Almadén mine has been closed since 2003. However, Almadén is the main exporter of mercury in the European Union and still continues to have considerable economic activity associated with mercury, because it sells it through the contracts signed by the company Mayasa with other companies in the chlor-alkali sector. These contracts are valid until May 2011.

Almadén should be expressly cited in the Regulation, because it is the only area in the European Union that is directly and negatively affected by the ban on exports, and because it has the best technicians and experts in handling mercury. The mine also has the capacity to store all of the liquid mercury in the European Union, at a depth of 200 metres, in an enclave of quartzite rock and volcanic rock with a high degree of impermeability, as verified 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 135

by the Director for Sustainable Development and Integration of the European Commission’s Environment DG, Mr Mäkelä, and the Slovenian Environment Minister, who visited the area in March 2007.

Milan Gaľa (PPE-DE). – (SK) Mr President, thank you for giving me the floor. The report by my fellow Member Mr Papadimoulis mentions dental amalgam as one of the sources of mercury supplies in Europe. Allow me to quote some interesting figures. Stomatologists in the European Union use 125 tonnes of mercury each year. They carry out more than 200 million mercury fillings each year. Our citizens walk around with more than 1 100 tonnes of mercury in their mouths. Amalgam waste containing 50% mercury is generated during the processing of dental amalgam and its application, in the process of removing original fillings, during cremation of the deceased. Extracted teeth and the possible leakage into groundwater after ground burials are also sources of mercury. Dental mercury also infiltrates the atmosphere during communal waste incineration. Taking all the above into account, dental practices rank only second or third in the production of mercury waste in the European Union. I am glad that the report reflects these facts as well.

Bogusław Liberadzki (PSE). – (PL) The position of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, and at the same time the Spanish viewpoint, was presented by my colleague Mr Martínez Martínez. I would therefore like to speak not so much about mercury, as about the specific example of a region whose fundamental activity is undergoing massive change. As a representative of a new country that went through a period of transformation in the early 1990s, I know this pain experienced by regions. It is therefore with the greatest satisfaction that I wish to emphasise that the European Union, and Parliament too, do not wish to abandon Almadén to its fate. Whether EUR 2 million will suffice is another story. The most important thing, though, is that this is how we are approaching this matter, and that is very valuable.

Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I should like to thank all concerned for their contribution. I do not understand why the rapporteur has put at risk a second-reading agreement and the adoption of the regulation in advance of the UNEP discussions in October 2008, where hopefully we will get a legally binding agreement on this most important area. He has put it at risk because of his lack of collaboration during the trialogue and during discussions. Maybe the Commissioner understands why the benefit of discussions at this stage was not extended to all the shadow rapporteurs or at least the key shadow rapporteurs who showed interest. I have serious reservations procedurally on what has happened, which has polarised a very important debate and report which otherwise could have been easily concluded with the vote tomorrow.

Stavros Dimas, Member of the Commission. − (EL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, according to the agreed text, mercury no longer used in the chlor-alkali industry or produced in other industrial enterprises will be regarded as waste and will be put into safe storage as soon as the ban on exports comes into effect on 15 March 2011. By 1 January 2010 at the latest, the Commission will organise an exchange of information between Member States and other interested parties with a view to considering the advisability of taking additional measures. By 1 January 2010 at the latest, on the basis of the available scientific data and current research on safe options for mercury disposal, the Commission will recommend the appropriate requirements governing the facilities and conditions for accepting metallic mercury. The Member States will monitor enforcement of the Regulation and its impact on the market, and will notify the Commission accordingly. If it is considered advisable, the Commission may propose a review of the Regulation by 15 March 2013 at the latest. Certain key provisions have been included in the proposed compromise package. The most important of these is a ban on exports extended to cover not only metallic mercury, but also cinnabar ore and two common compounds of mercury, mercuric chloride and mercuric oxide. As Mr Papadimoulis said earlier, mixtures with a mercury content of more than 95% by weight have also been banned from export. Mixing metallic mercury with other substances for the purpose of exporting metallic mercury has been expressly forbidden. A revised schedule has been agreed, which is in fact more exacting than that envisaged in the original proposal, while at the same time ensuring sufficient time for taking suitable measures at each stage. Provision has been made to exempt mercury compounds used in research and development and for medical or analytical purposes. An obligation is imposed on companies in the chlor-alkali and gas cleaning industries to notify the Commission and publish information on the quantities of mercury in storage or being dispatched for disposal. 136 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

A review clause requires the Commission to re-examine the situation and submit a report on the matter to the European Parliament and the Council proposing additional measures, if considered advisable, no later than 15 March 2013. The Commission is in a position to assure Parliament that enforcement of the Regulation will be closely monitored and any necessary additional measures will be proposed in good time. At the same time, the Commission is implementing the other procedures covered by the mercury strategy. It is negotiating vigorously for the adoption of international measures under the UN Environment Programme. Adopting of this Regulation ahead of the discussions scheduled for October 2008 on proposed international action, will demonstrate the EU’s commitment and determination. This comes at an opportune time and enhances the EU’s credibility among its partners. It is therefore essential that we agree on this compromise text. To conclude, Mr President, the Commission is in a position to accept proposed compromise amendments 42-63, as agreed in the tripartite talks. As I have said, the Almadén district could obviously be considered for safe storage of mercury, provided it meets the conditions to be imposed, and provided it has the necessary permits. However, the Commission cannot justify the priority given to only one area proposed in Amendments 37-41 and therefore cannot accept those amendments.

Dimitrios Papadimoulis, rapporteur. − (EL) Mr President, once again I warmly thank the rapporteurs from all the political groups. Without their effective cooperation at every step of this long-term endeavour and at each stage of the successful tripartite dialogue (and how effective the discussion has been), we could not have achieved the satisfactory compromise that has emerged.

The Council’s initial position, ladies and gentlemen, contained only one of the European Parliament’s amendments. The compromise before us shows that the important positions adopted by the European Parliament at first reading, together with the Commission’s constructive contribution, have been included in the agreement with the Council. We must safeguard this achievement. I can understand the concerns and requests of our Spanish colleagues concerning Almadén: let me remind you that we adopted this wording at first reading on my own recommendation. However, we must be absolutely realistic. Neither the Council nor the Commission is adopting this proposal and even the Spanish Government did not put forward such a request in the Council. If the European Parliament is overzealous on the Almadén issue tomorrow, we risk setting at naught the significant progress made by Parliament and failing to take advantage of a satisfactory compromise. We will also delay the adoption of measures to protect public health and the environment, as the current Parliamentary term ends in a year’s time. There is a grave danger that the Council will return to square one, which is its initial position, and a very long way from the position we adopted at first reading. I therefore call on you to vote in favour of this agreement tomorrow. Once again, I thank the shadow rapporteurs, the representatives of the Council and the Commission for the joint effort we have made to achieve this agreement.

Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I would have appreciated it if my question could have been addressed either by the Commission or by the rapporteur, but I see that it was not. Maybe that constitutes a statement in itself.

President. − Perhaps they will do so in writing. The debate is closed. The vote will take place tomorrow. Written statements (Rule 142)

Gyula Hegyi (PSE), in writing. – (HU) Mercury is one of the best known and most dangerous of the heavy metals. It damages the nervous system and immune system and is especially harmful to babies and children. I welcome the initiative to ban exports of mercury because, despite the restrictions imposed in recent years, its use has not declined significantly. Instead, it has shifted from the developed world to developing countries. The European Union is the world’s largest exporter and, therefore, if this regulation comes into effect, we can hope to see a reduction in mercury use world-wide.

When mercury is used it can also get into foods, which then appear on European Union markets. For this reason, we not only have a global responsibility to reduce mercury pollution in the developing world; it is also in our interest. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 137

I regard it as a personal success and a success for the Socialist Group in the European Parliament that the export ban also covers mercury-calomel, given that mercury can easily be converted to calomel and the cost of converting it back to mercury is minimal. If we did not include this provision, it would be easy for exporters of metallic mercury to evade compliance with the regulation.

22. Green Paper on better ship dismantling (debate)

President. − The next item is the report by Johannes Blokland, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the Green Paper on better ship dismantling (2007/2279(INI)) (A6-0156/2008).

Johannes Blokland, rapporteur. − (NL) On various shores in South Asia enormous seagoing ships for scrapping are dismantled under conditions that are environmentally damaging and humanly degrading. Social standards do not apply here. In Bangladesh alone, 200 lives have been lost over the past few years as a result of work on the dismantling of ships. Many children are used to dismantle the ships because it is easy for them to get into small spaces. They are expected to remove toxic substances without any protection for themselves. The substances then end up in the environment, with disastrous consequences for the fishing and tourism industries. Regrettably, many ships from Europe also end up on the shores of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, for example, in this way. The high prices of steel, low wages, poor safety regulations and absence of environmental measures are evidently financially attractive. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety clearly states that these practices are ethically unacceptable and that the humanly degrading and environmentally destructive conditions involved in the dismantling of ships must not be permitted to continue. The efforts of an individual Member State or of the European Union alone will not be sufficient to tackle this. Whatever we may do in the years ahead, a global solution to the problem of ship dismantling is still urgently needed. Unfortunately, it has to be said that not much has so far been achieved at global level. This, indeed, is precisely the reason why the European Commission has published a green paper. The main objective that we wish to achieve is the protection of the environment and public health without simply displacing the problems to other countries. In view of the fact that many seagoing ships currently sailing under the European flag will need to be dismantled in the coming years, we can no longer wait to take action. The Committee on the Environment specifically proposes the following. In order to prevent evasion of the provisions of the Waste Shipments Regulation, guidelines must be introduced that make it possible to distinguish between when a ship is truly a ship and when it is waste. The implementation and enforcement of the Waste Shipments Regulation must be improved through tighter controls and monitoring by port authorities in the Member States, on the understanding that port states must have the power to declare a ship to be at the end of its life. A list must be compiled of seagoing ships that are likely to be scrapped within a few years. A competitive and clean ship dismantling industry must be developed within the European Union, for example at shipyards that are currently disused. In the framework of development aid, know-how and technology must be transferred to dismantling sites in South Asia to help them comply with safety and environmental standards. Incidentally, the dismantling of seagoing ships in Bangladesh is an extremely lucrative business, in which a sufficient amount of money can be earned in order to swiftly implement acceptable working conditions for dismantling work. I should like to emphasise that it remains essential that we continue to work on two levels. First of all, we must shoulder responsibility for our own European fleet and work towards establishing a global agreement. At this moment in time, we cannot concentrate on one of these two issues alone. The response I have often received from the shipping industry is that this Green Paper would prevent or delay the development of an IMO convention. I do not agree with this. Rather, I believe that we, the European Union, are actually anticipating this IMO agreement and, in due course, will be better prepared to implement it. Moreover, I am firmly of the opinion that the European Union would like to move away from the serious conditions that exist in South Asia as quickly as possible. I am pleased that there is a high level of agreement on this issue in the Committee on the Environment and both of the committees who were asked for an opinion. That is in any case a good start. I assume that the plenary sitting can support this course of action. It also appears that the Member States are now able to take 138 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

action. Last Thursday, the Otopan left the Netherlands for Turkey after the authorities had had the ship cleaned, as a result of which all of the hazardous waste was removed. This is possible by virtue of the Waste Shipments Regulation. Previously, an export licence was refused because these conditions were not fulfilled. On that same Thursday, I received a visit from a delegation of the NGO that is committed to the responsible dismantling of ships is South-East Asia. It must be made clear that these people have been battling for a responsible ship dismantling industry in their country for many years, and we must not leave these people out in the cold. A lawyer from Bangladesh, people from India: they have been dedicating themselves to this cause for years, and I feel that we must support them in this and must adopt this resolution. I hope to hear what Commissioner Dimas intends to do in the near future with regard to establishing a responsible ship dismantling industry in these countries and to making the resources available to achieve this.

Stavros Dimas, Member of the Commission. − (EL) Mr President, about a year ago the Commission adopted the Green Paper on better ship dismantling. Since then, there have been various developments, particularly in the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), where a draft convention on ship recycling is being prepared and is expected to be approved in May 2009. However, recent reports in the media have once again revealed the dismal reality of shipbreaking practices in some parts of South Asia. I am therefore particularly satisfied with the support the European Parliament has given to the Commission’s initiative to improve shipbreaking practices. About 90% of all large ships decommissioned around the world in 2007 were dismantled on the coasts of South Asia, mainly in India and Bangladesh. Many of these ships were from the EU. We estimate that one quarter of the global fleet flies the flag of an EU Member State, and about 40% of all vessels are owned by EU-based companies. Shipbreaking on South Asian coasts is often carried out under appalling conditions: there is no protection against pollution whatsoever and workers’ lives are at risk. Very few ships have their hazardous materials removed before they reach the breaking yards. What Mr Blokland has just said about ship cleaning in Holland is very significant. When the ships reach their destination, the waste materials in question are removed in a way that is dangerous and harmful to the environment. To overcome this situation, international rules and Community legislation are already in place. However, the Basel Convention and the Waste Shipments Regulation are very often contravened and are rarely observed by the countries of destination, on the pretext that the ship is making its last voyage. According to the figures available to us, the number of ships reaching the end of their lives is steadily increasing, and the rules in question should therefore be adapted accordingly. The IMO draft Convention on ship recycling signals some progress in this area. It is likely to be approved in 2009 and we, for our part, shall do whatever we can to make that convention strong and effective. However, it will not apply to warships, state-owned vessels or other vessels in the service of the state. Furthermore, its implementation may take five or six years. Apart from this, the convention will be effective only if accompanied by the adoption of measures at national and regional level. Some Member States have already begun to take measures, as Mr Blokland has said, but a number of others have not yet begun to map out a strategy. For these reasons, it is essential to take measures in good time and at Community level. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank you once again for your report and for the support you are giving the Commission regarding the proposed measures. The report contains interesting and useful ideas, which we shall study carefully when devising our strategy. In particular, I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Blokland, for his efforts, and Mr Hammerstein, Mr Evans and the other members of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the Committee on Transport and Tourism, for their contribution.

David Hammerstein, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. − (ES) Mr President, thank you, Commissioner Dimas, and thank you, Mr Blokland, for this very relevant and necessary report, because although for some time the International Maritime Organization has been preparing new legislation on ship dismantling, so that it is more ecological and causes less problems for the health of workers in the Third World, in the South, this legislation could take years to be ratified and complied with globally. In the meantime, ship dismantling could reach maximum levels in the next ten years, precisely because of the new rules banning single-hull vessels. There are going to be an increasing number of ships to be dismantled. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 139

The European Union cannot wait for there to be a change in the international rules; it needs to act now, to lead the change, to promote green audits of ship dismantling and create a fund with the industry to internalise the environmental costs and also to help the communities in the South, that have already suffered a great deal from the environmental and health costs of this problem. We also need to implement a precautionary policy through the principle of compulsory substitution of hazardous materials in ships, because ships that leave to be dismantled in Asia are not a means of transport. No. They are hazardous waste, and we are exporting this hazardous waste, which is prohibited by European legislation. It is time to take responsibility and to act ethically and morally.

Robert Evans, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism. − Mr President, I may perhaps be the only person here tonight who has actually witnessed first-hand the process to which we are referring. As Chairman of the Delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia, I have been to Bangladesh and seen the shipyards. In amongst the ships that were being repaired and dismantled – and the noise, I have to tell you, was intolerable – there were whole families living, sleeping, cooking meals in shanty towns. Children were playing around the boats, retrieving cricket balls from under the vessels whilst above them oxyacetylene torches were being used. It is not acceptable for European ships – and none of them were flying European flags; by this stage they had already been passed off as local ships or from somewhere else in the world – to be broken in these circumstances.

The Committee on Transport and Tourism believes that the EU should lead the way and encourage global action with the clear aim of putting an end to the current practices and ways in which ships are dismantled, particularly in parts of South Asia. But dismantling should not be stopped altogether, nor indeed immediately, as Mr Blokland stated, in view of its economic importance to the countries concerned. I agree with the rapporteur when he says that we must work towards a global strategy which ensures that all those who are involved in the process of ship recycling assume their due share of responsibility for the way it is carried out – for safety, workers’ rights and the protection of the environment. Finally, I think we should also support the development of a competitive and clean European ship-recycling industry. But, in the meantime, Member States must commit themselves to a policy that state-owned vessels and old warships will be dismantled in a safe and environmentally sound way.

Françoise Grossetête, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, can we accept that our vessels that are to be broken up go and pollute the beaches of South Asia because we refuse to accept our responsibilities for dismantling them? South Asia, which receives most of our vessels, unfortunately receives polluting substances such as asbestos, pyralenes, oils and hydrocarbon sludge, which end up in the soil, the sand and the sea, and that is not the only thing! Children work on dismantling these vessels, because they can enter small spaces easily, and unfortunately, they remove toxic materials without any protection at all. They are cheap labour, and suffer from chronic incurable diseases. From an ethical point of view this is unacceptable, especially as the vessels come from Europe and thus end up on the beaches of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. The European Union, which is partly responsible for these social and environmental problems, must take the right measures, in cooperation with the IMO, to put an end to social and environmental dumping due to economic incentives. There are measures to be taken urgently, to establish constraints on the recycling of vessels, and that should include requirements for certification and notification. When vessels are designed and built, the perspective of future recycling should be incorporated, and facilities for recycling boats should be provided. We urgently need to establish facilities that will be deemed the best of their kind in terms of human rights, health and safety.

Then, without wishing to deprive South Asia of this large market, we also need to provide facilities in European naval yards so that we can recover this waste for ourselves, and then develop what we could call ecologically rational dismantling, all of which could serve as a basis for an international agreement. 140 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

Linda McAvan, on behalf of the PSE Group. – Mr President, I am glad that the Commission is bringing forward proposals and I am pleased the EU is finally dealing with this issue, because we have known about it for a long time. The conditions that Robert Evans has just described are nothing new to this Parliament and nothing new to the Commission. Yet it is now the end of May 2008. We have a Green Paper and we hear that we are going to have a proposal from the Commission to be adopted in May 2009, which means it will be at the end of this Commission and in the middle of the European election campaign. I wonder how we will ever have anything in place to deal with the hundreds of ships which the Commission has identified. It knows that 800 single-hull tankers will have to be dismantled from 2010 onwards. I wonder if you can comment, Commissioner, on that very short timetable which we are leaving ourselves to introduce legislation. It would also have been better if the EU could have completed the legislation in this Parliament before the end of your mandate. The Socialist Group will support Mr Blokland. We have supported everything he has done throughout this procedure and we thank him very much for his hard work. We will also support amendments which strengthen the proposal, but we will not support amendments which are protectionist. We are not seeking to stop ships being dismantled in Asian countries because, as Robert Evans has just pointed out, there are jobs at stake and the metals are a major source of raw materials for these countries. But we want the pre-cleaning, which, as Mr Blokland pointed out, is quite possible. We need to invest in specialised cleaning operations in Europe so that we can have a much safer environment for people to dismantle ships in the developing countries. We also support the creation of a ship-dismantling fund. I have seen that the PPE-DE Group have asked for separate votes. I hope they are not going to vote against that fund tomorrow in plenary.

Commissioner, I hope we can act speedily and that we can get something on the statute books to deal with the huge increase in ships for dismantling in 2010.

Marios Matsakis, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, congratulations to Mr Blokland for his – as expected – excellent report and for the very good cooperation offered to all shadow rapporteurs. The subject matter of this Green Paper is very important, as well as being deeply worrisome. Much of the dismantling of ships as presently done can rightly be characterised by many as criminal, both with reference to human health and also with reference to the environment. Most such dismantling, as we all know, takes place on beaches and river banks on the Indian subcontinent with no or minimal concern for the most basic rules of protection of humans and of the environment from contamination by a variety of toxic substances, including numerous carcinogenic agents. Additionally, workers in such dismantling places are treated with the utmost disrespect for their human and labour rights and for their dignity, not to mention the use of child labour in truly atrocious conditions which, in some cases, differ little from child slavery in its most despicably shameful glory. A small number of amendments have been submitted, most with the support of the rapporteur. We shall follow his position, with the exception of Amendment 1, for which we can find no reasonable explanation why it does not meet with Mr Blokland’s approval and for which we shall vote positively, and we trust that others will do the same. In giving our full support to this Green Paper let us hope that ship dismantling, regrettably a most necessary eventuality for the shipping industry, is done in the future in an environmentally, socially and hygienically safe manner and that it will provide a much needed but properly and safely earned income for the population of developing countries. Let us also hope that the ideas in this report are put into legislative form as soon as possible and that its scope is extended to include military as well as commercial vessels. Finally, let me say that I agree with previous speakers that our eventual aim should be a globally accepted strategy for ship dismantling.

Kartika Tamara Liotard, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (NL) Firstly, I should like to thank my colleague Mr Blokland most warmly for his excellent report. I feel that he has outlined very well the enormous problems that are created in poor countries as a result of the dismantling of European ships. The consequences for both working conditions and the environment are often serious, and the EU must not run away from its responsibility for these. 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 141

Amongst other things, Mr Blokland opts to follow the route of more stringent international legislation. I am most certainly an advocate of such legislation, but I fear it will take much too long before tangible results can be achieved in this way. Europe must take action now and cannot wait for the rest of the world. Effective scrapping regulations must be established for ships. These regulations should include a provision to the effect that, in principle, European ships may only be dismantled outside the EU if the owners can demonstrate that it is impossible for this to be carried out within Europe. Furthermore, ships for scrapping that contain asbestos or other hazardous substances should in any case be dismantled in European territory. We cannot allow our rubbish to cause great problems elsewhere in the world. Once a ship ceases to be suitable for use, we must stop thinking of it as a ship. It then becomes waste and must be treated as such. We do not simply allow other hazardous waste to leave the EU without guarantees with regard to the way in which it is going to be processed, and so there is no reason why we should do so with ships for scrapping. In addition, emphasis should be placed upon processing within the Union itself, as is the case in the entire European waste policy. Finally, a policy of naming and shaming shipowners and Member States who have their ships dismantled according to methods that are unfriendly to the environment and people would be an effective initial step that we could in fact commence tomorrow. The responsibility for dismantling a ship responsibly must always remain with the owner and, subsequently, it is up to Member States to verify that this takes place in the correct manner.

Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE). – (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your excellent work, and the same goes for Mr Blokland.

The Green Paper before us on better ship dismantling is, in all seriousness, a classic example of the global imbalance that has resulted from industrial development and of the efforts of many different agencies at long last to do something about its negative impact. The responsibility of the industrialised countries rightly comes to the fore in situations where developing countries suffer intolerable social and environmental harm because others have gone in pursuit of economic benefits. The negative impact of ship dismantling is particularly glaring. With the greater environmental, health and safety requirements of which industrialised countries have had to take account, most of the world’s seagoing vessels are dismantled in Bangladesh, Pakistan and India, often in very primitive conditions. Dismantling yards barely comply with health and environmental standards, and toxic substances such as asbestos are handled by people wearing shorts and sandals. The use of child labour is also common. The equation is a difficult one. Ship dismantling is a profitable business for these countries, not only in terms of its effect on employment and the financial benefits but also for the recovery of raw materials. For example, Bangladesh gets 80-90% of its steel from dismantled ships. At the same time, low labour costs and the lack of basic standards make it an economically attractive business, which in practice results in environmental dumping and a human tragedy on an enormous scale. An increase in unprofitable dismantling in the EU with the help of aid is not, however, a sustainable option. There should instead be direct aid measures for the developing countries engaged in dismantling, greatly multiplying the environmental and social benefits. After vessels have been partially dismantled or cleaned they are in practice unfit to sail, and after asbestos has been removed, for example, most ships can no longer be moved. For that reason aid measures should focus on the establishment of certified dismantling yards, where the dismantling techniques used comply with Western notions of safety and environmental acceptability. Globally there should be a list for shipping companies of approved dismantling yards, and the International Maritime Organization should have a key part to play in their certification, to make the system truly international. This would solve the equation. The developing countries need the economic and material benefits derived from dismantling, and the shipping firms in the industrialised countries which are under growing pressure need the situation to change.

Bogusław Liberadzki (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, some words of acknowledgement for the rapporteur, Mr Blokland; as always, once again he has done some excellent work. Mr Evans said that he had seen ships being dismantled in Bangladesh. Beyond the Polish eastern border, which is also a European boarder, I have seen instances of ‘non-dismantling’ of ships; in other words, somewhere on the seashore, fishing vessels, passenger ships and freighters, and even military ships, have been dumped and the water has flushed them out. We are talking about the first step, then, which is dismantling. The second step would seem to be some kind of duty to dismantle. Then, finally, there is the third step – recycling, or establishing the kind of material used to 142 EN Debates of the European Parliament 20-05-2008

build ships, how this material is embodied in the vessel and how such materials may be recovered. This is the process we are commencing. As an economist rather than an idealist, I believe we have quite a long road ahead of us, but it is a very good thing that we are starting our journey along it, and let us hope that we will find followers out there in the world.

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE). – (RO) I would also like to congratulate Mr. Blokland for his report. In response to the accidents in which oil tankers such as Erika and Prestige were involved, the Union adopted the international legislation and rules for the gradual phasing-out of single hull oil tankers. It is estimated that approximately 1,300 single hull oil tankers will be phased out and sent for dismantling by 2015. The costs entailed by the ship dismantling are very high and make the recycling of ships unfeasible from the economic point of view. In many Member States, there are still ships that are very old, in poor condition, anchored at the shore or even stranded on the shores of internal waters. Thus, I believe special attention should be given to delta and estuary areas, where stranded ships could have a negative impact on the environment. Stranded ships often block navigable waterways periodically and cause substantial economic damage. Since 2005, the International Maritime Organization has worked on implementing a mandatory international system for ecological ship dismantling, a process to which the European Union has also contributed. The future international convention and the responsible involvement of Member States will be essential for solving the problems related to ship dismantling.

Stavros Dimas, Member of the Commission. − (EL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the high level of discussion this evening. Your report is extremely encouraging as regards the Commission’s proposals. Let me mention three issues you have touched on. Firstly, you call on the Member States and the Commission to enforce the Waste Shipments Regulation more effectively. You also call on the Commission to draw up a list of ships likely to be taken to breaking yards in the next few years. We shall examine the possibility of drawing up such a list. As Mrs Grossetête has proposed, we must also list the facilities that meet higher standards. Furthermore, with regard to ships reaching the end of their lives, we agree that stricter regulation on the shipment of waste must be enforced. The Commission intends to provide the necessary guidelines. I expect the authorities of the Member States to ensure that there are no cases of ships being allowed to leave EU ports if they are clearly being sent for breaking in developing countries. In addition, in view of the fact that most ships of European origin will be broken and turned into waste outside Community waters, a binding international regime really must be enacted. Secondly, we shall examine the question of developing a competitive shipbreaking and pre-cleaning industry in the EU, without endangering the viability of South Asian breaking yards. The European shipyards are not in a position to compete with the breaking yards of South Asia. There is no question, then, of retaining or artificially bringing back the bulk of the shipbreaking market to Europe. What we can ensure, however, is the requirement that warships, other state-owned ships and those receiving state aid should be broken up exclusively in facilities that are environmentally well run, in Europe or in OECD countries. We could perhaps require ships flying the flags of Member States to be broken exclusively in fully authorised and certified facilities. Pre-cleaning should be made common practice so that it becomes practicable. Lastly, I see that you are supporting the proposal to set up a shipbreaking fund. You are asking the Commission to examine the possibility of imposing compulsory insurance as a guarantee of environmentally friendly recycling. The Commission is to examine the existing options. Those responsible in the shipping sector inform us that the new international Convention on ship recycling will combine with market forces to solve the shipbreaking problem. We certainly do not want to create unnecessary administrative or financial burdens. We shall, at any rate, keep a close watch on developments; we shall not hesitate to take regulatory measures if the market remains unable to provide a solution to this problem. Your continuing support will be of crucial importance in ensuring a change for the better in shipbreaking conditions.

Johannes Blokland, rapporteur. − (NL) I should like first of all to thank all the speakers for their appreciative words, especially Commissioner Dimas. I should like to make a couple more observations. I believe that it is of exceptional importance that this dismantling fund be established. This fund should be filled with contributions from shipowners and not, of course, with government subsidies. I believe that that is not at all necessary. In the same way as a scrapping fund for old cars, this will begin to support itself as 20-05-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 143

time goes by. I am happy that the Commissioner is also thinking along these lines. We must be very quick and, therefore, it may perhaps be a good idea to enter into an agreement with the European shipowners as soon as possible, so that they will have their ships dismantled responsibly in any case. I know that shipping company P&O Nedlloyd Maersk has had around 20 ships dismantled responsibly in China, particularly also by ensuring that facilities were provided there where possible. I believe that we must make the shipowners, in particular, aware of their social responsibility and let them know that they really cannot do this any more; that is, to sell a ship for large sums of money. It is then sold 10 more times before it is finally dismantled. We need to adopt a completely different approach to dismantling and, in my opinion, it may well be possible to induce the shipowners to do so, especially given all the negative publicity on this issue in recent years. Dismantling work is also often carried out in contravention of local legislation and against the wishes of the Ministries of Social Affairs and the Environment. I have also been told that, in Bangladesh, it is not the national legislation that is the problem but the enforcement of such legislation. I think, therefore, that there may well be sufficient facilities in place, but they are not being used. Mr Matsakis also asked what my objection is to his amendment. The issue is that this amendment implies that environmentally destructive conditions involved in the dismantling of ships cannot be permitted to continue in developing countries. However, they cannot be permitted to continue anywhere, including in Eastern Europe, for example, where ships are indeed still occasionally dismantled according to irresponsible methods. It is therefore excessive to focus this exclusively on developing countries, particularly if it is later specified that it is not allowed to be carried out in places such as the Far East. I feel that this addition is unnecessary, therefore. Unfortunately, I cannot support the amendments by Mrs Liotard, as they are too protectionist. Mr Liberadzki has raised an important issue, specifically that there are also ships stored elsewhere, left to rust, with nothing being done about them. We must also tackle that issue. I should like to say a big thank you to everyone once again, and I shall leave it at that.

President. − The debate is closed. The vote will take place tomorrow.

23. Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes

24. Closure of the sitting

(The sitting closed at 23.40.)